Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> schrieb/wrote:
> I'd gather that most of -legal isn't worried about the copyright
> statement, license, or author's statement (which is the same thing as
> the copyright statement) being immutable. Most of those can't be
> modified under the applicable copyright law and construed as the
> original anyway.
Claus Faerber wrote:
>Maybe that's the solution to the GFDL problem: Allow documents that
>come under a GFDL licence if the only immutable parts are licence texts
>or author statements.
Close but not quite right.
We don't mind the copyright statment *for the work* or the license *for
the work*. If the GFDL'ed work contained the GFDL as its only invariant
section, that might conceivably be OK (apart from the other problems
with the GFDL).
But there's no reason to allow a GFDL'ed work to contain, as invariant
sections, other arbitrary licenses (or copyright notices) which don't
apply to the GFDL'ed work. (For instance, many GNU manuals contain
copies of the GPL version 2 as immutable sections. If, for instance,
the GNU Make manual was heavily modified to create a BSD make manual, it
would have to retain such sections, even though BSD make is not licensed
under the GPL...)
Anyway, even if this was the 'solution', we still *must* kick the GCC
and GNU Emacs manuals out of main.
I don't understand why that hasn't been done yet.
Reply to: