[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

Per Olofsson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:10 -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>>Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org> wrote:
>>>There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
>>>every document non-free or only those that include invariant
>>>sections.  The result is that... er... I am confused as well...
>>>Could somebody enlighten me?
>>When the GFDL was originally inspected, the conclusion was that the
>>GFDL was free as long as there were no invariant sections (and maybe
>>some other sections).  Since then, other problems have been discovered
>>that make all GFDL documents non-free.
> I think most of them are summarised [1]here.
> [1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html

And in Nathanael Nerode's excellent "Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL"
paper, at http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html .

- Josh Triplett

Reply to: