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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:15:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> It is a factual accuracy that my derivate is "a GNU manual".

The key word here seems to be "is".

Your derivative would *contain* a part of a gnu manual.

> It is a factual accuracy that FSF makes money by selling hardcopies of
> my derivate.

I'd call this hypothetical.  And, tangential.

> > You can create a derived copy of the work which eliminates the
> > content you don't want, and wrap the remainder in the required cover
> > and include that as a chapter or appendix in some other manual.
> No. Cover texts has to go on the cover.

Of the GFDL licensed component, not on the work as a whole.

And, as I said in the message you were responding to, while the GFDL
approach is unwieldy, it's less so than a "patches only" license could be.


Reply to: