> Raul Miller wrote: > > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > >>Unless the derived document falls under section 7, "AGGREGATION WITH > >>INDEPENDENT WORKS" (which requires that more than half of the document > >>consists of independent work not derived from the GFDLed document), you > >>must put the covers around the entire derived work, not just part of it. > > > > This is a solvable problem.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:55:28AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > How would you suggest solving it, given that you should be able to make > a derived work of the document as a whole without just referencing it? There are at least three solutions: [1] Add more original content [2] Let the document be referenced under its original title. [3] Strip out more of the bulk from the GFDL document. > (Also note that even if this "workaround" works and you only need to > include the Cover Texts and Invariant Sections in an appendix, that > would still be non-free; this "workaround" only solves the inaccuracy > problem, not the Freeness problem.) I agree that this is independent of the freeness issue. > > Exactly. > > A Free license should allow you to create a derivative work of the > document, instead of just referring to it. It does. > For example, you should be > able to write a manpage for "ls" based on the coreutils documentation, > without including the entire document in an "appendix" of the manpage, > or including the Cover Texts on the "front and back covers" of the > manpage. Coreutils documentation is not at all structured like a man page. I think it would be better to copy the ideas and not the content. > It should also be possible to take the entire GNU coreutils > manual, and modify it to document a different implementation of the same > commands, without having to include inaccurate Cover Texts or Invariant > Sections (or accurate ones either, for that matter). This line of thought has potential, but a concrete practical instance (with some specific reference to some DFSG clause(s)) would probably help. > > Where's the DFSG requirement that requires the license permit distribution > > without the unpatched sources? > > I don't know what the consensus is about licenses that require source to > accompany the binary in the same package, but even if they were allowed, > a Free license must still allow derivative works based on those sources > and some patches, and those derivative works must not be required to > include the unmodified original work or any particular unmodified > portions of the original (either large Invariant Sections or small Cover > Texts). Ok, but where is the language stating this? -- Raul
