On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 07:58:01PM -0700, Brian C wrote: > I think answers to these questions are critical if progress is to > be made. If the FSF simply says, "This is our license. Now it is > solely up to you to include manuals licensed in this way or not." > then I think it is pretty clear that the consensus here will not > favor the GFDL. This would be a shame both because of the enormous > work it would create in replacing manuals, and because I still > believe that with several tweaks to the GFDL many here would find > it DFSG-consistent. Fortunately, it is not as much work as we might fear. At least four GNU Manuals that have recently had Invariant Sections added to them and were relicensed under the GNU FDL were DFSG-free in earlier versions. Search the archives of this list for "traditional GNU documentation license". However, important works like the GNU Emacs manual, _Using and Porting GNU CC_, and _The GNU C Library Reference Manual_ have had invariant sections for several years at least. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Extra territorium jus dicenti branden@debian.org | impune non paretur. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpZOP7RHXk9q.pgp
Description: PGP signature