On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation
> > > (containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant sections.
> >
> > This might be a reasonable thing, but it is not what the GFDL requires.
>
> actually, it is. the GFDL explicitly says that you can provide a link to
> an internet site - and, contrary to loony zealot propaganda, it does not
> say that you must operate or maintain that site yourself.
You forgot something...
> If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document
> numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> each Opaque copy a publicly-accessible computer-network location
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> containing a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> added material, which the general network-using public has access
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> to download anonymously at no charge using public-standard network
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> protocols. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in
> quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus
> accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the
> last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through your
> agents or retailers) of that edition to the public.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
