Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:56:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> The point of the sentence is that the GDFL as applied to the GNU
> manual requires me to make a factually incorrect claim. I agree that
> it is tangential what this claim is precisely, but I had to spell it
> out because you seemed to claim that the cover texts would not become
> factually incorrect.
I fail to see the required factual inaccuracy.
> > There's at least two different ways of legally combining the works of
> > multiple authors into a single work.
> That is irrelevant. I am not talking about combining the pre-existing
> works of multiple authors. I am talking about deriving a BSD manual
> from a GNU one.
In this case, "the gnu one" is a pre-existing work, and "a bsd manual"
is a work combining the works of multiple authors.
> > > A patches-only license that does not allow distribution of
> > > ready-to-run versions of modified works is not DFSG-free either.
> > "ready to read" and "ready to run" are not equivalent.
> Great. Next you'll be saying that "programs" and "documentation" are
> not equivalent,
> and that therefore it does not matter whether the GFDL
> is free or not.