Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"
Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The GFDL is doing its job by guarding against this. Debian may label
> our manuals as "non-free", an appelation I disagree with and will
> criticize, but at least it cannot remove them.
Sure it can. It can move them to non-free. (Or perhaps you mean the
Invariant Sections by `them'?)
It is likely to happen now that you have stated that you will no longer
be discussing the issue. I guess we have closure.
> I was considering the idea of making the GFDL say "You can use this
> material under the GPL too (aside from the invariant sections, which
> cannot be modified)". Someone rightly reminded me a week ago that
> commercial publishers might be reluctant to use the GPL alternative,
> which was a point in favor of it.
> But now I see that this idea has a serious drawback: Debian would
> probably immediately remove the invariant sections and distribute the
> manual sans invariant sections under the GPL. I think that nixes it.
We would surely do this if the section were still invariant, only to
make the whole content of wat is distributed by us free.
We would surely _not_ remove the philosophy sections (that are current
Invariant) if they were also GPL'ed.