Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
Henning Makholm wrote:
At least it would seem to be nonsensical to spend a lot of effort on
this until and unless we reach a consensus on *specific* ways in which
our demands of documentation licensing should differ from the DFSG (in
its usual interpretation).
As far as I can see, none of the people who argue that the demands
could *in principle* be different have been willing to suggest
specific differences from the DFSG that they want to apply to
documentation.
Specific differences from the DFSG should allow inariants in the
documentation as
==================================
a named appendix or a front-matter section of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject
(or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly
within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a
textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any
mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal,
commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding
them.
==================================
Probably also "Cover Texts" as
==================================
certain short passages of text that are listed,
as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that
the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may
be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 word
==================================
AFAIK it will be not enough for standards as RFC.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Reply to: