Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:42:53PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> 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?
Have you read the first paragraph of section 1?
If so, what makes you think that chapters of a BSD manual which
incorporates a chapter from a GFDL book must all be licensed under
> > 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.
And how does this help when what you want to distribute from that program
isn't a binary?