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

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

> >      If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
> >      allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for him,
> >      to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still distribute
> >      the unmidified manuals with the Invariant Section in it.

> Didn't we just say we're not making exceptions for things that are
> "sufficiently non-software-like"?

No, we just said that license text are sufficiently non-software-like
to enjoy an exception.

> >       Of course both of these limits are
> >      judgement calls, and each particular Invariant-But-Removable
> >      section will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

> And further, as a practical matter, it's not reasonable for us to be
> making judgement calls on every random piece of documentation that
> gets uploaded.

A packager already has to make a lot of judgement calls when he
packages something. Deciding which parts of the documentation is
relevant and up-to-date to include in the binary package is already
one of them.

Henning Makholm          "Gå ud i solen eller regnen, smil, køb en ny trøje,
                   slå en sludder af med købmanden, puds dine støvler. Lev!"

Reply to: