Re: License of wget.texi: suggest removal of invariant sections
Don Armstrong <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>> If the point you're making is that someone might want to remove the
>> GPL text from the manual, for example to make it shorter, I guess
>> that's a valid concern.
> Yes, that's the issue.
I see. But that's still quite different than the issue you describe
below, which is about the GPL no longer applying to Wget (as opposed
to the issue of the GPL text making the manual too long).
>> Including the text of the GPL in Wget's manual serves the purpose
>> of explaining Wget's copying terms to the user. As such, it seems
>> pertinent regardless of whether Wget is actually distributed along
>> with the manual.
> To reiterate what you said above, our problem is that the GPL can't be
> removed at all, even when it's no longer applicable, not that it's
> being included by wget.texi in the first place.
What I don't understand is how the GPL can be "no longer applicable",
given that it's not possible to change Wget's license. If the
copyright holder (in this case the FSF) decided to change the license,
surely they could also remove the invariant section?