Re: migrating away from the FDL
In article <email@example.com>, J.D. Hood wrote:
>> I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable,
>> unmodifiable, 10,000 word "Ode to my goldfish" and no other
>> restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient. I haven't
>> seen anyone from Debian defend that position yet.
> I don't think that RMS would say that the documentation+ode document
> was free. I think he would say that the goldfish ode was ... erm ...
> a red herring. An Invariant Section must be a Secondary Section, ...
You go on to show that the documentation+ode could not be distributed
under the GFDL; I don't see how that has any bearing on whether or not
it is free. RMS would be the first to agree that not all free
software need be distributable under the GPL, GFDL, or any other