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. > Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I'd call this hypothetical. And, tangential.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:11:23PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Only if you consider the possibility of deriving derivates from > DFSG-free stuff hypothetical and tangential in general. Eh? It's true that the sentence in question uses the word "derivate", however [a] this derivate does not exist (thus making the sentence hypothetical), and [b] the point of the sentence seemed to have to do with making money (thus making the sentence tangential). Here's another example of a tangential sentence which still uses words that might seem relevant. My dog ate the derived copy of the software. > > > 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. There's at least two different ways of legally combining the works of multiple authors into a single work. One way involves getting the authors to agree on some copyright license and putting the whole work under a single license. The other involves combining elements under different licenses into a single whole (which is independently copyrightable but which is made possible by the individual licenses). Some licenses (the GPL is a good example) include requirements which are relevant to the copyright as a whole. In the case of the GFDL, however, it's not that specific. > > 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. "ready to read" and "ready to run" are not equivalent. -- Raul
