On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Actually, I wonder whether the current application of the GFDL for > GNU manuals is internally consistent at all. > > For example, the GNU diffutils manual is licenced with the Front-Cover > Text "A GNU Manual". Say now that I'm a FooBSD user who for some > reason have become dissatisfied with the quality of the documentation > for diff that FooBSD ships with (this is a hypothetical example; I > have access to no *BSD systems and don't know anything about the > actual state of their documentation). So I take the texinfo source for > the GNU diffutils manual and hack upon it so that it describes FooBSD > diff. > > Now I have a manual for FooBSD diff whose license says that it needs > to be called "A GNU Manual" on its front cover. That could be somewhat > confusing for users - does this document describe the FooBSD or the > GNU implementation of diff? And is this front-cover text even > compatible with the requirement that I remove all Endorsements? > > Worse yet, my FooBSD diff manual must say on its *back* cover: "Copies > published by the Free Software Foundation raise funds for GNU > development" which is rather meaningless as long as the FSF does not > publish copies of the FooBSD version of the manual at all! Another good argument against the GNU FDL. Sorry for the AOL remark, but I'm trying to flag stuff I think should go in our big FAQ. -- G. Branden Robinson | "To be is to do" -- Plato Debian GNU/Linux | "To do is to be" -- Aristotle branden@debian.org | "Do be do be do" -- Sinatra http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgp4v_JZWNtgU.pgp
Description: PGP signature