[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL



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: pgp3zSK6ef8X6.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: