Some time ago, I asked this list some questions to clarify the FDL. It was suggested that I try the FSF directly, and I've now had a response. Questions and response included below. [sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - Mon Mar 17 16:04:16 2003]: > > Hi, > > I'd be grateful if you could clarify some points on the FDL > that I'm unclear about. > > 1) Is the text given in "How to use this License for your documents" > just an example of what to include, or must this text be included? It's just an example. > Would something like "Permission is granted to copy, distribute > and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free > Documentation License.", with a link to the full license, be > sufficient? You should include the full text of the license with your document. Also, specify whether there are any front or back cover texts. > 2) The section on Transparent formats mentions XML with DTDs, but > does not mention XML Schemas. I assume that this is an oversight, > and that the FSF does not have anything against Schemas. Yes, it's an oversight. I'm sure it will be corrected in the next version.. > 3) The schema for my document format is currently incomplete (due > to lack of time), though full XSLT is available for rendering of > XML to HTML and PDF. Does this invalidate the license? I don't think so, if you're distributing the document in that XML format. > 4) I have formatted the FDL to match the style of my documents, > without changing the content. Does this infringe on the > "but changing is not allowed" clause on the FDL copyright? No, that sort of modification is fine. -- -Dave "Novalis" Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation -- Be seeing you, ------------------------------- Sam. http://www.bifrost.demon.co.uk/ -- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis -- -- Desc: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+pvy1f6Cy7pRwE0QRAjeWAKC12h6U8ZQnbYMF64gZQda/yeKH8gCfRI4R TKpBCJqYOcJblS6jiiZ3oCk= =9IOY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----