Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 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.
