Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
>>>>> "PO" == Per Olofsson <pelle@dsv.su.se> writes:
PO> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:10 -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org> wrote: > There seems to be
>> some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
>> > every document non-free or only those that include invariant >
>> sections. The result is that... er... I am confused as well...
>> >
>> > Could somebody enlighten me?
>>
>> When the GFDL was originally inspected, the conclusion was that
>> the GFDL was free as long as there were no invariant sections
>> (and maybe some other sections). Since then, other problems have
>> been discovered that make all GFDL documents non-free.
PO> I think most of them are summarised [1]here.
PO> [1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html
Unfortunately, the draft position statement doesn't explain, which
section of DFSG is violated in such a case and why. I can understand
there are problems with GFDL, but I can't see the direct DFSG violation
if no Invariant Sections etc. are present.
Could somebody explain this, please?
Milan Zamazal
--
And why?
Reply to: