Re: Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Precisely. The modified copies would, of course, have to make clear
that they were not the originals; otherwise they would violate any
number of laws (libel, fraud, etc...)
Joe Wreschnig <email@example.com> schrieb/wrote:
The only "manpower" required should be a clause that allows converting
the document to be under the GPL, much like the clause used in the LGPL.
This would result in the most possible restrictions while still being
That would imply giving anyone the permission to modify the GPL, the
LGPL, the GNU manifest, etc. if they are embedded in a manual.
"Debian will remain 100% free software." Users like me would like to be
able to rely on that.
As long as they fit under the definition of a ``secondary section''
according to the FDL and are either the license or removeable; I don't
see a reason not to distribute such ``invariant parts'' in main although
they are non-free.
Since you added the caveat that they would have to be removable (which
GFDL invariant sections *aren't*), I guess this is true.
Please note that this applies to both programs and documentation. It
does not make a difference if the GNU Manifest is included an binary
package or a manual packages: It's not needed for the software (program
or documentation) to ``work''.