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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Scripsit Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:15:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:

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

> I'd call this hypothetical.  And, tangential.

Only if you consider the possibility of deriving derivates from
DFSG-free stuff hypothetical and tangential in general.

> > No. Cover texts has to go on the cover.

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

The work as a whole inherits the GFDL license of the manual I derived
it from.

> 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.

A patches-only license that does not allow distribution of
ready-to-run versions of modified works is not DFSG-free either. If we
apply that criteria to human-readable documentation, a free license
should allow distribution of modified ready-to-read documents. It may
require that everyone who receives such a ready-to-read documents can
also opt to receive machine-readable source of the original and a
machine-readable description of the differences.

Henning Makholm                                           "Børge råbte: Åh!"

Reply to: