Re: Unidentified subject!
Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> The argument for that is that there are many
> > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
> > be interpreted to accept it.
> The arguments appear to be:
> 1) There are many GFDL manuals.
> 2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
> That's two parts out of the three I mentioned, and the third part is
> crucial. The DFSG doesn't directly say anything against the
> requirements of the GFDL. I sent another longer message explaining
As a matter of fact, it does. The DFSG directly forbids Invariant
Sections, which violate DFSG 4: the license restricts even source code
(the "transparent form") from being distributed in modified form.
Additionally, because Invariant Sections must be Secondary, the GFDL's
implementation violates DFSG 6. There is *no* work of free software
which can be created as a derivative work of a GFDL-licensed manual
with invariant sections.
Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code
as well as compiled form".
Brian T. Sniffen email@example.com