Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > The term "heavily affected" is still an exaggeration. In any case,
> > the effect is simply due to incompatibility. I posted a long message
> > explaining that this sort of thing is a consequence of the existence
> > of incompatible free licenses.
> No, you've missed the point.
> There is *no* license which is free-for-software which would allow the
> use of such a manual section in isolation. None. Because, of course,
> the FSF's definition of free, as applied to software, doesn't allow
> invariant sections.
> That's both inaccurate (since it does, in some ways, allow them) and
> irrelevant (because we don't apply our definition of free software to
> manuals, and Debian may not apply it to anything), but in addition,
> this problem doesn't really depend on invariant sections at all. The
> same would be true for a GPL-covered manual, because you can't use
> snippets without a copy of the GPL (unless they are fair use).
You can include the GPL as a separate file. It doesn't have to be
included in the derived work itself. Invariant sections must be
included within the work, not alongside the work, as does the GFDL
license itself actually.
> However, the point is that the simple license, was always compatible
> with at least one free software license. For example, one could
> easily distribute software under the simple license itself.
> I don't think anyone ever did so. In practice, the issue is not
> significant, since you can distribute the manual along with the
> software, and make the software access the manual in whichever way you
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org