Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Joe Moore wrote:
>Fedor Zuev said:
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>>>Fedor Zuev <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes
>>>> It almost certainly affect the normal use of program and
>>>> will be unacceptable because of this, not because of mere existence
>>>> of such code.
>>>How does ls --hangman bringing up a hangman program affect the
>>>normal use of the program more then a large manifesto affect the
>>>normal use of the manual?
>> 1) It should be compilable with any compiler used for
>> compilation of ls.
>If this is a reason to reject the invariant --hangman option for ls
>as non-free, then this is a reason to reject invariant
>(untranslatable) sections of documents as non-free.
You read the GFDL yourself? Or you just read the silly talks
about GFDL in this list?
You allowed to translate all document by the
section 8 of GFDL. Including invariant sections. The translations of
invariant sections will not invariant, btw. You only reqired to
keep original versions of invariant sections in the document. For
the same reason you reqired provide the source code by GPL.