Re: What does GFDL do?
Richard Stallman <email@example.com> writes:
> While you are free to state the terms by which the GFDL should be
> interpreted for GNU documentation, this is not always the case. We have
> in the past seen cases where copyright holders have interpreted
> seemingly unambiguous statements in a pathological fashion (see Pine,
> for instance) - in the GFDL case, the wording does not make it clear
> that it is the intention that the license may be bound as a separate
> volume. If this is how you wish the license to be interpreted,
> clarification of the license would be helpful.
> I think it is clear that a printed work can consist of multiple
> volumes, but clarification might not hurt. I will think about it.
I'm particularly worried that if you open the door to asymmetric
volumes, you will encourage bad behavior: if you allow a tough,
laminated cardstock reference card to be Volume I, while the license
and invariants are on onionskin paper in Volume II, most recipients
will simply throw those latter parts away: they'll be treated as
"small print" of no concern to the reader.
In order to get what you want -- more exposure for the political ideas
of documentation distributors -- you're going to have to explicitly
restrict the ways that multiple volumes can be constructed. It runs
so counter to the apparent goals of the GFDL that all of us assumed
you intended for this to be forbidden.