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

Re: GNU FDL and Debian

Henning Makholm wrote:
>To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers at
>all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing* publishers
>to publish and sell hardcopies. It would not help a publisher that
>*he* has the text under GFDL if his competitors (or those that he
>perceives as competitors) have it under the GPL.

Not quite true.  The GPL publication would require the inclusion of 
source code, or an offer to provide source code, in machine-readable 
form.  Meaning for instance the texinfo, LaTeX, or similar code on a 
disk or CD.

Publication under GFDL would not have this requirement.  Hardcopy 
publishers would be fairly likely to choose the GFDL rather than the GPL 
simply due to this.

RMS, unfortunately, has shown zero interest in dual-licensing FSF 
GFDL'ed manuals under the GPL, presumably because he cannot give up 
unremovable Invariant Sections.  It is unfortunate that he is the FSF 
autocrat and does not allow anyone else to influence the FSF policy on 

Nathanael Nerode  <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>

Reply to: