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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On May 10, 2004, at 13:12, Raul Miller wrote:

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

I'd call this hypothetical.  And, tangential.

I call it an easter bunny. So what?

The FSF does not publish copies of my derived work; that is factually inaccurate.

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.

Ummm, what? Have you read the first sentence of GFDL 3?

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.

Huh? A free patches-only license allows the results of compiling patched source code to be distributed.

Reply to: