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, True. > and that therefore it does not matter whether the GFDL > is free or not. False. -- Raul