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

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 13:37, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >This still fails - as a result of the use of invariant sections, I
> >am unable to use content from one piece of documentation in another
> >piece of documentation under the same license under certain
> >circumstances. I'm not aware that this is true of anything we
> >regard as DFSG Free.
> 	License incompatability is not an unusual thing for the free
> software licenses.

Reread what he said. He cannot use content from one document in another
document *under the same license as the first one*. This is because the
Invariant secondary section in the first document might not be secondary
in the second document, and so cannot be Invariant, and so cannot be
used. Nor can any section that is attached to the invariant section
(that is, any other section in the work).

For example, say I wanted to use parts of the GCC manual to write a book
"The History of Free Compilers". The GNU Manifesto is now clearly a
non-secondary section, since it's obviously immediately related to the
history of free compilers. So, I can't use any of the GCC manual in
writing it.

Saying this is a "license incompatibility" is like saying I can't
integrate Windows source into the Linux kernel because it's a license
incompatibility. Strictly, it is, but no one would ever call it that
because the "incompatibility" is so great that we classify Windows as
non-free and stop caring about it at all.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: