Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    >     > I explained in a message here, a couple of months ago, that this
    >     > difference in wording does not really lead to a difference in
    >     > consequences.
    > 
    >     Um, yes it does.  Importantly, it allows for more flexible
    >     distribution strategies.
    > 
    > They allow the same distribution strategies.  In a previous message, I
    > explained why there is no practical difference.

    There *is* a practical difference.  For example, when I distribute a
    set of GPL'd works, it suffices to send one copy of the GPL.  When I
    distribute a set of GFDL'd manuals, I must distribute many copies of
    many invariant sections.

I was responding to a specific point.  Someone claimed that the fact
that the GFDL says that the license must be "included in" the work,
not just distributed "along with" it.  My response addressed that
issue.

You're raising a different issue.  It is not logical to misinterpreted
my response as responding to that issue.

All I want to say about the new issue is that a small fractional
increase in size for a large collection of manuals is not a big deal.
That's not enough to make a license non-free.

    I think Debian folks understand what you are trying to accomplish with
    the GFDL, and are sympathetic with the goal, but we find the methods
    used to be disturbing and worrisome.

    Do you understand why Debian objects?

Debian doesn't have a view on this; various Debian developers have
variou views.  I have been trying to convince Debian developers that
the GFDL's methods are proper, but you're all entitled to form your
own opinions and make your own decisions.