Henning Makholm wrote: >To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers at >all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing* publishers >to publish and sell hardcopies. It would not help a publisher that >*he* has the text under GFDL if his competitors (or those that he >perceives as competitors) have it under the GPL.
Not quite true. The GPL publication would require the inclusion of source code, or an offer to provide source code, in machine-readable form. Meaning for instance the texinfo, LaTeX, or similar code on a disk or CD. Publication under GFDL would not have this requirement. Hardcopy publishers would be fairly likely to choose the GFDL rather than the GPL simply due to this. RMS, unfortunately, has shown zero interest in dual-licensing FSF GFDL'ed manuals under the GPL, presumably because he cannot give up unremovable Invariant Sections. It is unfortunate that he is the FSF autocrat and does not allow anyone else to influence the FSF policy on this. -- Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc.gnu.org> http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
