Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

[Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>     (It is trivial to fix this, if you are not obsessed with unremovable 
>     "Invariant Sections" to the exclusion of all other goals.  Add a clause 
>     to the GFDL allowing GPL-conversion, exactly like the clause in the 
>     LGPL.
> 
> This is simple, but it might effectively nullify all the other special
> features of the GFDL.  That is something we want to avoid.

It was argued that commercial publishers would prefer using the GFDL
(with its special features marketed to them) over the GPL.  So it covers
both cases.
 

>                                                           But I think
> that would not be free, because this behavior is substantive, not mere
> packaging.  It's not the same as just printing an informative message
> about something nontechnical.

You often refer to the inclusion of Invariant Sections as a mere
packaging issue.  To us, a packaging issue is how software gets packed
to distribution and installation on someone's system and has little to
do with the content that gets installed (e.g. Invariant Section are
content, not packaging).

Peter