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

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

> 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.

> Claus