Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"
Richard Stallman <email@example.com> wrote:
> > A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do
> > this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a
> > nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just
> > theoretical.
> No, it's still a theoretical problem. The above has nothing to do
> with the content of the statements themselves, merely the fact that
> they are not free under the DFSG.
> The problem is that our non-modifiable political essays might be
> removed from our manuals, if the manuals' licenses permitted that.
> You have just said you would remove them.
You should probably read the whole thread before replying.
Prior to this message, I must have read half-a-dozen or more messages
saying that _we_ _wouldn't_ remove them if they _were_ _free_. They
would only removed if they were Invariant and yet removable, in order to
make the manuals free. If the sections in questions were DSFG-free,
then we wouldn't need to remove them to make the manuals free.