discuss: Confusion about GNU FDL
Subject:
Re: Confusion about GNU FDL
From:
David Merrill ####@####.####
Date:
15 May 2002 13:52:34 -0000
Message-Id: <20020515144458.GB11201@lupercalia.net>
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:54:32PM +0200, ####@####.#### wrote:
> David Merrill wrote:
> > [...]
> > I would ask you to have none of those sections.
> > They are not really useful unless you are an
> > actual publisher who intends to sell the book.
>
> I have a related question about item 4.A:
>
> # In addition, you must do these things in the
> # Modified Version:
> #
> # A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any)
> # a title distinct from that of the Document, and
> # from those of previous versions (which should, if
> # there were any, be listed in the History section
> # of the Document). You may use the same title as
> # a previous version if the original publisher of
> # that version gives permission.
>
> This seems to make a fork of the project a bit difficult.
> OTOH it is not specified how many and what kind of
> characters suffice to make a title distinct.
Yeah, it does make a fork difficult. That's why I don't like it. But
really the reason I don't like using those sections is because stuff I
write I want to be as flexible as possible for others. I don't want to
make money off of them. I only want the credit to be given for what I
did. And I don't need those sections to do that.
I really like for authors to leave their work as unencumbered as
possible, no invariant front-cover or back-matter type stuff at all.
That let's the LDP use the material in any way we want to. I think
after our 10 year track record we can be trusted to use it only to
benefit our readership. The group as a whole is very much oriented
toward doing that.
> Anyway, in the Author Guide the complete text of the
> FDL is included as appendix A. OHTO the Reviewer HOWTO
> contains this:
> # [...] and is released under the terms of the
> # GNU Free Documentation License, which is hereby
> # incorporated by reference.
>
> What, that's all? No URL, no version number of the license,
> nothing about special sections. Can it really be that simple?
It really should have a more complete statement. Yes, I too get lazy
sometimes. :-/
--
David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project ####@####.####
Lead Developer http://www.tldp.org
The fact that there's some e-mail here at MS that says, 'let's go up and
beat this guy'...there's nothing wrong with that. That is capitalism at
work for consumers.
--Bill Gates on Good Morning America, 11-11-98
