Re: What does GFDL do?
Richard Stallman wrote:
> > If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages
> > of additional invariant material. That is still bigger than the
> > reference card. Do you object to the GPL on these grounds?
> There's a critical difference here. The GPL can accompany the
> reference card. The invariant material must be in the reference card.
>I explained months ago, and again last week, why this is not so.
While you are free to state the terms by which the GFDL should be
interpreted for GNU documentation, this is not always the case. We have
in the past seen cases where copyright holders have interpreted
seemingly unambiguous statements in a pathological fashion (see Pine,
for instance) - in the GFDL case, the wording does not make it clear
that it is the intention that the license may be bound as a separate
volume. If this is how you wish the license to be interpreted,
clarification of the license would be helpful.
Regardless of Debian's conclusions regarding the freeness of GFDL
documentation including invarient sections, it would be useful to ensure
that GFDL documentation lacking them is regarded as Free by everyone. I
hope that the discussions that have taken place do lead to clarification
and bugfixing in a mutually satisfactory way.
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com