Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    But what if an Invariant Section was the only part of the document that
    fell foul of the law?

I guess nobody could distribute that version, so it might be 
non-free.

However, all free software and free documentation licenses share this
problem.  You could simply add code for a DeCSS program, and that
would make the modified version illegal in the US.  So the existence
of such a possibility cannot be a criterion for criticizing a license.

      I have read statements
    =66rom you saying that while you cannot indorse Debian because it
    including "non-free" on its FTP servers, you have stated that Debian
    gives better considerations to users' rights by separating non-free
    software from the Debian System.  As the GFDL allows for text that
    is legally, morally or ethically objectionable shouldn't we, Debian,
    not mark a GFDL work as different also (given that such material
    can not be modified)?

A distinctive marking of some other kind might be reasonable.