Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Scripsit Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:15:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > > It is a factual accuracy that FSF makes money by selling hardcopies of
> > > > my derivate.
> Scripsit Raul Miller <email@example.com>
> > > I'd call this hypothetical. And, tangential.
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:11:23PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Only if you consider the possibility of deriving derivates from
> > DFSG-free stuff hypothetical and tangential in general.
> Eh? It's true that the sentence in question uses the word "derivate",
> however [a] this derivate does not exist (thus making the sentence
> hypothetical), and [b] the point of the sentence seemed to have to do
> with making money (thus making the sentence tangential).
The point of the sentence is that the GDFL as applied to the GNU
manual requires me to make a factually incorrect claim. I agree that
it is tangential what this claim is precisely, but I had to spell it
out because you seemed to claim that the cover texts would not become
> Here's another example of a tangential sentence which still uses words
> that might seem relevant.
> My dog ate the derived copy of the software.
That is not a required cover text, is it?
> > The work as a whole inherits the GFDL license of the manual I derived
> > it from.
> There's at least two different ways of legally combining the works of
> multiple authors into a single work.
That is irrelevant. I am not talking about combining the pre-existing
works of multiple authors. I am talking about deriving a BSD manual
from a GNU one.
> > A patches-only license that does not allow distribution of
> > ready-to-run versions of modified works is not DFSG-free either.
> "ready to read" and "ready to run" are not equivalent.
Great. Next you'll be saying that "programs" and "documentation" are
not equivalent, and that therefore it does not matter whether the GFDL
is free or not.
Henning Makholm "*Vi vil ha wienerbrød!*"