Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy <email@example.com>:
> > One could do that, but it wouldn't help because the FSF documentation
> > under discussion is neither a logo nor in the category of
> > "political/philosophical/historical texts".
> The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of
> political/philosophical/historical texts. Only these texts can be
> invariant in the GFDL.
The GNU Documentation under discussion is _not_ in the category of
political/philosophical/historical texts. Only the invariant sections
are in this category. So your suggestion would only help if one were
to remove all the actual documentation from the GNU Documentation and
replace it by other unrelated political/philosophical/historical stuff
so that the FSF invariant sections would still be secondary. Then
Debian could include the FSF's invariant sections, if Debian changed
its rules in the way you suggested, but Debian still couldn't include
the actual documentation, so why exactly do you think this is useful?