Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"
Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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 misunderstood. We would remove them only if they were
nonmodifiable. If they were both removable and modifiable, then we
would keep them.