Re: Suggestion to maintainers of GFDL docs
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 20030416T094049-0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > * Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
> > And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
> > were made... invariant!
> If we were to add to each GFDL'd document a section (invariant or not)
> saying, essentially, that we consider GFDL a non-free license (what else
> can that section say?), we would have to start moving such documents to
> nonfree at the same time. Otherwise we'd be hypocrites.
You're quite right. Forget about making it invariant.
> Personally I believe that simply moving them to nonfree is far more
> effective than such an added section. Look at the publicity our stance
> against KDE used to generate when it had its license problem.
You're probably right.
But I still wouldn't encourage the use of the license without the
invariant parts being used since it allows derived works to add them.
Peter S. Galbraith, Debian Developer <email@example.com>
GPG key 1024/D2A913A1 - 97CE 866F F579 96EE 6E68 8170 35FF 799E