Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 07:26 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
and we're about to claim that GFLed documentation, which may not at
all having any invariant part, is non-free stuff.
No, we claim that FDL-covered documents are not free software.
Is this mail a software?
Yes, at least for the purposes of the Social Contract and the DFSG.
Beside from that, what is your problem with GFDLed documentation
without any invariant parts?
(apart from the DRM issue which do not seems to be on purpose
problematic - and so which can be fixed, if the problem is confirmed)
If the DRM bugs really do get fixed, there may be some problems with
transparent forms. I'm not if by "without any invariant parts" you mean
no front or back-cover texts and no dedications, but those may prove
problematic as well.
If we can get the DRM-section worked out, I think any remaining
problems would likely be small bugs, easily fixed. I'd have to do a
thorough review of the license, as I'm sure many others here would as
well, to be sure.
Do you mean that it's not possible to just distribute a GFDLed
documentation alone?
I do not understand what "work" refers to, what "documentation part"
refers to. And you noticed that the expression "free stuff" is
ambiguous but you use it. Puzzling.
I _think_ he means the documentation part, as opposed to the secondary
sections. I think. Not sure either.
Reply to: