Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> * Mathieu Roy (firstname.lastname@example.org) [030909 13:50]:
> > Andreas Barth <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> > > * Mathieu Roy (firstname.lastname@example.org) [030909 11:20]:
> > > > And it leads me to another question for the list: when thinking about
> > > > the GFDL, the answer from the list is 'the GFDL is not
> > > > DFSG-compliant', but should we consider that GFDLed documentation is
> > > > equal to non-free software, by disregarding the license itself which
> > > > provide freedoms that no non-free software provides? It's a bit
> > > Sorry, but there is certainly non-free software that provide freedom
> > > equally to GFDL.
> > Name one.
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
I'll just give the most obvious reason:
For a GFDL documentation, you do not need the author approval to
distribute modified versions.
(please, do not assume that invariant sections exists in every GFDLed
Not a native english speaker: