Re: A possible GFDL compromise

["Joe Moore" <joemoore@iegrec.org>]

Peter S Galbraith said:
> As I read it, you can have the text of the FDGL
> as a separate file in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, it has to be
> included in the derived work itself.

I'm assuming you left out the 't from "can" above, and you are saying that
you can't just refer to /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright.

If the derived work is defined to be the entire "foo-doc.deb" package, then
/usr/share/doc/foo-doc/copyright is in the derived work itself, but anyway:

This is a vague part of the GFDL, but RMS has indicated that the GFDL can
"accompany" the rest of the material.  For example by creating the "Emacs
Reference Card Pack", with the Reference card (laminated cardstock), and the
twelve[0] other pages of required text (invariants, cover texts and the
license text) on normal bond paper.

There's no point in standing up this straw man.  There are enough other
issues about the GFDL to debate.

It would be interesting to know the reasoning for the change of wording
between the GPL and the GFDL, though.

--Joe
[0] FSVO twelve.  Your pagination may vary.