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

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

>>>>> "PO" == Per Olofsson <pelle@dsv.su.se> writes:

    PO> 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.

    PO> I think most of them are summarised [1]here.

    PO> [1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html

Unfortunately, the draft position statement doesn't explain, which
section of DFSG is violated in such a case and why.  I can understand
there are problems with GFDL, but I can't see the direct DFSG violation
if no Invariant Sections etc. are present.

Could somebody explain this, please?

Milan Zamazal

And why?

Reply to: