Re: A possible GFDL compromise

["Joe Moore" <joemoore@iegrec.org>]

Richard Stallman said:
> 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).

But there is a difference between the GPL-required text:
>>>>> Portions of this work (specifically page 12) are Copyright (C)
>>>>> 2003 The Free Software Foundation and are licensed under the
>>>>> GNU GPL.  See Appendix G for the text of the GPL.  This notice is
>>>>> considered a written offer to provide the source to any third party
>>>>> under the terms of the GPL, valid until January 1, 2007.  This work
>>>>> has NO WARRANTY.
[Appendix G has the text of the GPL.]

And the GFDL-required text:
>>>>> Portions of this work (specifically pages 12-19) are Copyright (C)
>>>>> 2003 The Free Software Foundation and are licensed under the
>>>>> GNU GFDL, with Invariant sections <foo> and <bar>, front cover
>>>>> text "A GNU Manual", and back cover text "baz".  See Appendix G for
>>>>> the text of the GFDL.
[ Appendix G has the text of the GFDL.]
[ Page 12 is the "front cover" of the GFDL'd subwork, so has just the words
"A GNU Manual"]
(Page 13 is the same as page 12 above)
[ Pages 14-15 have the invariant section <foo> ]
[ Pages 16-18 have the invariant section <bar> ]
[ Page 19 is the "back cover" of the GFDL'd subwork, so has just the word
"baz"]
--Joe