Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Joe Wreschnig <email@example.com> schrieb/wrote:
> The only "manpower" required should be a clause that allows converting
> the document to be under the GPL, much like the clause used in the LGPL.
> This would result in the most possible restrictions while still being
> GPL compatible.
That would imply giving anyone the permission to modify the GPL, the
LGPL, the GNU manifest, etc. if they are embedded in a manual.
As long as they fit under the definition of a ``secondary section''
according to the FDL and are either the license or removeable; I don't
see a reason not to distribute such ``invariant parts'' in main although
they are non-free.
Please note that this applies to both programs and documentation. It
does not make a difference if the GNU Manifest is included an binary
package or a manual packages: It's not needed for the software (program
or documentation) to ``work''.
http://www.faerber.muc.de -- http://www.bayern-gewinnt.de/