Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

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

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>     > A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do
>     > this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a
>     > nonexistent problem.  Now we know the problem is not just
>     > theoretical.
> 
>     No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to do
>     with the content of the statements themselves, merely the fact that
>     they are not free under the DFSG.
> 
> The problem is that our non-modifiable political essays might be
> removed from our manuals, if the manuals' licenses permitted that.
> You have just said you would remove them.

You should probably read the whole thread before replying.

Prior to this message, I must have read half-a-dozen or more messages
saying that _we_ _wouldn't_ remove them if they _were_ _free_.  They
would only removed if they were Invariant and yet removable, in order to
make the manuals free.  If the sections in questions were DSFG-free,
then we wouldn't need to remove them to make the manuals free.

Peter