FDL requirements for original author

[Ben Finney]

On 05-Feb-2008, hwe wrote:
> What license would you recommend for those who like the FDL but are 
> unwilling to reveal their LaTeX sources?

I would recommend a psychotherapy session first. How can one "like the 
FDL" but simultaneously not want to give recipients the source to the 
software? That's fundamental to the goals of the license.

Clearly, the goals of these people are not compatible with freedom of 
the work.

> [1] If one publishes as often as there are downloads, the license 
> would encourage taking content offline as soon as 99 are reached

Rather, the license encourages publishing source in all cases, to 
avoid exactly the issue you're describing.

> hardly the intention of a free license.

It's also hardly the intention of a free license to permit restricting 
the freedom of recipients of the work. That seems to be at odds with 
the goals of the people you represent.

-- 
 \         "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."  -- |
  `\                                                     Aldous Huxley |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <ben at benfinney.id.au>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20080206/6d56b6a4/attachment.sig>