Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:31:34AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> Some of the inaccuracies I recall from the last GFDL debate included the
> address of the FSF in the GNU Emacs manual's Invariant sections, if the FSF
> While not forbidding additional invariant sections, the only way to
> "clarify" inaccuracies in a GFDL invariant section is to add additional
> invariant sections, which leads to an unacceptable bloat of A-said B-said
> competing invariant sections.
Sure, if the address is no longer valid, the license requires that
the new one be listed separately.
> But the license forbids distribution of _ANY_ derivative work without the
> invariant sections, which under the "fraud" assumption in [C] means that the
> entire, useful manual can not be distributed. (Or even just one particular
> chapter of the manual that documents the command line switches for the
Yep -- unlike the GPL, it doesn't have a "if part of this license
is invalid the rest still applies" clause.