[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 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
the GFDL?

> > 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?


Reply to: