Xournal: how to use for an existing pdf?
craigwhite at azapple.com
Wed Dec 7 08:06:19 UTC 2011
On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 00:20 -0500, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 12/06/2011 11:56 PM, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 23:19:23 -0500
> > Ric Moore<wayward4now at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> the right to approve his edit and
> >> receive a copy... just as the GPL states. Ric
> > GPL v. 3? I don't recall those rights/restrictions. In fact, I'm
> > almost positive that the GPL doesn't give an original author of
> > software (or anything) approval of edit rights to refinements made by
> > others, nor does it require a copy be sent to originators. All one is
> > required to do is to include the license, credit those who have gone
> > before (original and previous authors) and provide source code.
> > ...as I understand it, but I am not a lawyer.
> I'll be darned. I just read the V2 GPL online and it USED to have the
> provision in it that if you modified another's code you owed the
> revisions back to the original creator, who was then free in use the
> improvement in his program. I recall. It ain't there now. I'm gonna dig
> in some old CD's and see if I can find that version of the GPL. It
> seemed like a common courtesy to me.
> "And the times, they are a-changin' ". Ric
maybe but the GPL v2 or GPL v3 hasn't
and documents are unlikely candidates for GPL licensing anyway. Licenses
like Creative Commons are much more conducive to documents but in either
case, it's a huge leap to assume that these PDF's that the OP is
referring to have anything to do with free licenses.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the ubuntu-users