Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Henning Makholm wrote:
> 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.
Unless it is "mere aggregation", and that's defined by law.
>
>> 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.
>
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: