Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
Scripsit ichimunki <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Wednesday 12 December 2001 12:56, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 3) Works licensed under the GNU FDL meet the DFSG if:
> > A) there are no Invariant Sections[*]; or
> > B) the only Invariant Sections consist of license texts which
> > apply to a work, or a substantively related work (such as the
> > program being documented, in the case of a manual).
> So the crux of this proposal is that emacs (a signature piece in the history
> of the Free Software) at least be moved into non-free,
Yeah. I wonder where all the bits about "individual good judgement
must be used" went. It seems to me that Branden has reacted to the
objections that too bright bright-line tests are not a good idea,
simply by defining another and even less flexible bright-line. What
good can possibly come of this?
> (imho) There is no reason to change the portion of the manual relating to
> the historical rationale for the development of the software, or the
> philosophy of Free Software, or the dedication of countless man-hours to
No, but there can be good reason to vant to not include them when one
reuses part of the manual.
Henning Makholm "They are trying to prove a hypothesis,
they are down here gathering data every season,
they're publishing results in peer-reviewed journals.
They're wrong, I think, but they are still scientists."