Re: Unidentified subject!

[bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>       The argument for that is that there are many
>     > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
>     > be interpreted to accept it.
>
>      The arguments appear to be:
>
>     1) There are many GFDL manuals.
>     2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
>
> That's two parts out of the three I mentioned, and the third part is
> crucial.  The DFSG doesn't directly say anything against the
> requirements of the GFDL.  I sent another longer message explaining
> why.

As a matter of fact, it does.  The DFSG directly forbids Invariant
Sections, which violate DFSG 4: the license restricts even source code
(the "transparent form") from being distributed in modified form.
Additionally, because Invariant Sections must be Secondary, the GFDL's
implementation violates DFSG 6.  There is *no* work of free software
which can be created as a derivative work of a GFDL-licensed manual
with invariant sections.

Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code
as well as compiled form".

-Brian

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen                                        bts@alum.mit.edu
                       http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/