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 <email@example.com> 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 here.
>  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