Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
On May 10, 2004, at 16:58, Raul Miller wrote:
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
That doesn't sound like it'd qualify for GFDL 7. Sounds like you'd be
using Section 5.
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
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
isn't a binary?
If there is no "build time" then the first sentence of DFSG does not
apply and that is not a free license. (BTW: DFSG 4 does not use the
term 'binary'; I assume this is what you mean).