Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Scripsit Jérôme Marant <email@example.com>
> > On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > > > 1) Are works under the GFDL with invariant sections free?
> > It also depends on your definition of 'free', of course. What's
> > yours?
> What's the definition of free documentation?
There is no generally accepted accepted one. Do you have a proposal?
You do seem to have some working model of what *you* are willing to
consider free documentation, since you argue that the Emacs manual
should stay in main.
> GFDL permits this I think. But you have to keep the invariant section.
See the "reference card" case.
> I'm sorry I don't get it.
The point is that most people on debian-legal seem to think that the
DFSG is a reasonable test to apply to documentation, irrespective
of whether documentation and software are the same thing or not.
Can you offer any arguments why the DFSG is *not* a reasonable test to
apply to documentation?
Henning Makholm "Vi skal nok ikke begynde at undervise hinanden i
den store regnekunst her, men jeg vil foreslå, at vi fra
Kulturministeriets side sørger for at fremsende tallene og også
give en beskrivelse af, hvordan man læser tallene. Tak for i dag!"