[plug] Is there a "GPL" for documents/howto's etc?

[Christian]

On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Mike Holland wrote:

> GPL is not an alternative to copyright. It _requires_ that you (or
> someone) retain copyright, so keep that notice.

This is right - the GPL is a license, the "software" is still copyrighted
(ie, owned) by it's author(s).
 
> Secondly, you should put applicable warnings, but if this is free stuff,
> no payment means no contract, so its pretty hard to sue (but not hard
> enough :( ).

Ummm.. free speech or free beer?  My understanding of David's email was
that he was referring to Free as in the Free Software/Freedom meaning of
the word in which case the documentation/software etc. could be sold
and/or resold.
 
>   There's not much you can do to stop plagurism anway, but where do you
> draw the line between that and research?

I would think that a document licensed under the GPL would be able to have
portions of it included in other works without restriction (although an
acknowledgement would be required).

Regards,

Christian.

============================================================================
  Microsoft Windows NT: Providing 386 emulation for your Pentium hardware.