discuss: Confusion about GNU FDL
Subject:
Re: Confusion about GNU FDL
From:
"Greg Ferguson" ####@####.####
Date:
15 May 2002 17:01:43 -0000
Message-Id: <10205151257.ZM16991@hoop.timonium.sgi.com>
On May 15, 9:57am, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> Subject: Re: Confusion about GNU FDL
> On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 09:52, Charles Curley wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:21:44AM -0400, Greg Ferguson wrote:
> > ...
> > > Here's the GFDL license DocBook XML/SGML snippet:
> > >
> > > <!-- Legal Sections -->
> > > <sect2 id="copyright">
> > > <title>Copyright and License</title>
> > >
> > > <!-- The LDP recommends, but doesn't require, the GFDL -->
> > > <para>
> > > This document, <emphasis>Sample XML HOWTO</emphasis>,
> > > is copyrighted (c) 2002 by <emphasis>author_name</emphasis>.
> > > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
> > > document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
> > > License, Version 1.1 or any later version published
> > > by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections,
> > > with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.
> > > A copy of the license is available at
> > > <ulink url="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">
> > > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html</ulink>.
> > > </para>
> > > </sect2>
> >
> > Is it unnecessary to put the entire license in your document?
>
> I just had this chat with Richard a month or two ago. You MUST
> include the entire GFDL in your document.
Why?
Doesn't what I've provided fall under an "included by reference" clause?
--
Greg Ferguson * SGI principal engr / LDP contributor
SGI Tech Pubs * http://techpubs.sgi.com/ | gferg(at)sgi.com
Linux Doc Project* http://tldp.org/ | gferg(at)metalab.unc.edu
