Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
On May 10, 2004, at 13:12, Raul Miller wrote:
It is a factual accuracy that FSF makes money by selling hardcopies of
my derivate.
I'd call this hypothetical. And, tangential.
I call it an easter bunny. So what?
The FSF does not publish copies of my derived work; that is factually
inaccurate.
You can create a derived copy of the work which eliminates the
content you don't want, and wrap the remainder in the required cover
and include that as a chapter or appendix in some other manual.
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?
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.
Reply to: