Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab AT web.de>]

At Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:49:52 -0500,
drew Roberts wrote:
> 
> On Saturday 21 January 2012 04:12:06 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > Latex is free software and available virtually everywhere, so not having 
> > it
> > in the first place means that you are too lazy to install it.
> >
> > If you did not get the latex source in the first place (if that’s what you
> > mean), then the one who sent you the file under GPL made a license
> > violation.
> 
> You are missing the point. I am the one who created the file in the first 
> place and it was with a program that does not produce latex.

In that case there is no reason for you to offer a latex source. Ater all, e 
C programmer is not required to create python sources, just because his codde 
cannot be run by python. 

> So what is the situation. My release is unacceptable source that can be 
> used 
> by someone else as a source to make something that is then acceptable 
> source?

Your release is perfectly acceptable source. No one fores you to hand out 
LaTeX, except if you used LaTeX yourself and shar3ed the document in a 
wlayout which is substantially less editable than LaTeX.

> So if I get you right, the license would only require you give source at 
> least 
> as good as you got for everyone but the original author? Or?

Not even that. You have to hand out the source you would use yourself to edit 
the work.

Best wishes,
Arne