On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:37:00PM +0000, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said: > > 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 > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Er, that just means if you distribute 100 copies, you need provide > neither a transparent copy or a link. s/neither/either/
Which means the link thing Craig is talking about doesn't apply for small quantities. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
