Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> as the GFDL. The parenthetical is false. The GPL does not require
>> that it be included in the distributed work, merely with the
>> distributed work.
>
> I don't think this is a very meaningful distinction, for the context I
> was discussing.
In the context of the GPL and the GFDL, this is a *very* meaningful
distinction.
The GFDL requires that Invariant Sections be retained unmodified with the
same section titles (and presumably listed in the Table of Contents). It
requires that Cover Texts be placed in a certain size on the cover of all
derived works. These are painful functional requirements.
The GPL requires that a copy of the license accompany the work. This is
not.
"Patch-only" licenses must allow distribution of modified binaries. For
source, they require distribution in a funny form, but one which is easily
and losslessly convertable with free tools to the desired source form; so
this doesn't impact the functionality much if at all.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: