Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Keith Dunwoody <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > It seems weird to me. Someone said that GFLed documentation without
> > invariant sections can be made non-free if someone getting a copy of
> > the documentation add invariant sections.
> > What does it change? Do we consider BSD software as non-free software
> > because they do not forbid a software to become (wholy) "invariant"?
> Please review the archive. GFDL is non-free even without invariant
> sections, due to the anti-DMCA clause.
This has been discussed recently and it was so not clear.
Not a native english speaker: