Follow-up Comment #78, task #16584 (group administration):
>> By the way, why didn't you want to release those files permissively? If I'm
>> not mistaken, they are much shorter than the text of the GFDL itself.
>
> I choose GFDL for the reason that GNU gives me a exhaustive guidance to apply
> GFDL license.
>
> Secondarily, I think to use a suit of GNU licenses could avoid some
> compatibility trouble.
But GNU gives as exhaustive guidence on applying e.g. GNU All-Permissive
License, and it has even less compatibility trouble.
Anyway, let us admit that you have reasons to use exactly the GFDL.
I'd like to also assume that you value your users' freedom and convenience as
well, don't you?
Now, if you use the GFDL, you should assume that your users will want to
redistribute those documents printed—after all, the GFDL includes a lot of
provisions about it. And then they will be allowed to do that unmodified if
the GFDL is included in the document and they'll have to modify the document
to include the GFDL if it isn't.
> Sir/madam, please judge whether GFDL has been applied to StoneValley properly
> or not. Let us continue to proceed.
If you care about being on the safe side, you can follow the guidelines
literally and add a section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License" to each
document in question.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?16584>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
