On 10/18/05, E L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (quoting the gpl-faq):
but that would be cumbersome and unnecessary for a book or manual. For instance, anyone publishing the book on paper would have to either include machine-readable "source code" of the book along with each printed copy, or provide a written offer to send the "source code" later.
Hmm, that explains why people keep thinking that with GFDL your'e not subject to the same restriction...
I really don't understand this - FSF ought to know their own license. Why would they imply something that is obviously false about it?
According to the license text: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
Paper is clearly "opaque" (section 1 paragraph six), and section 3 (third paragraph) is crisp clear about the need to provide the "transparent copy".
I really don't understand this - FSF ought to know their own license. Why would they imply something that is obviously false about it?
According to the license text: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
Paper is clearly "opaque" (section 1 paragraph six), and section 3 (third paragraph) is crisp clear about the need to provide the "transparent copy".
