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

Re: Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org> 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.
Precisely. The modified copies would, of course, have to make clear that they were not the originals; otherwise they would violate any number of laws (libel, fraud, etc...)

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.
"Debian will remain 100% free software." Users like me would like to be able to rely on that.

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''.
Since you added the caveat that they would have to be removable (which GFDL invariant sections *aren't*), I guess this is true.


Reply to: