[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)



Eric Baudais wrote:
> The only text which can be an invariant section is the text pertaining
> to the author's relationship to the document.

   [...]  Even entire sections that may not be deleted or changed are
   acceptable, as long as they deal with nontechnical topics (like this
   one). [...]

That's from the "Free Software Needs Free Documentation" section of the
GNU gdb info page, and would seem to contradict what you're saying.

     Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
  under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
  any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
  Invariant Sections being "Free Software" and "Free Software Needs Free
  Documentation", with the Front-Cover Texts being "A GNU Manual," and
  with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below.
  [...]

Copyright of said info file.

Incidentially, the "Free Software Needs Free Documentation" section
contains a statement about the copyright status of perl's documentation
that is incorrect on all Debian systems. And yet we cannot modify that
statement to make it match reality or give it its proper historical
context. Nice example of how invariant documentation sections will
invariably become out of date and useless.

-- 
see shy jo

Attachment: pgpwAwFCzMgFu.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: