Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Now, again, some restrictions on creating derived works are generally
> > considered acceptable. But required inclusion of arbitrary lumps of text
> > in a particular manner certainly isn't one of them (even with the
> > oft-ignored GFDL restriction that they must be 'off topic').
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:41:52PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> The oft-ignored restriction that invarient sections must be off-topic
> probably just makes the DFSG 3 problems worse: It also limits derived
> works to not covering certain topics (or, at least makes their status
> *very* unclear if they do cover those topics).
Huh? This would be true if the rules about secondary sections applied
to the document as a whole.
But they don't.
> I can't use part of the GNU Emacs manual in my essay on software
> freedom, because I'd have to include an invarient section about that
> subject (but I can't because invarient sections have to be off-topic...)
They have to be about the relationship between the authors and the
document. They're clunky. But that's not the same thing as forbidding
them.
You'd be much worse off trying to include example code from some "no
changes, only patches" source code license.
You'd havr even worse problems if you tried to include examples from
two sources which had incompatible licenses.
In other words, this is ugly, but it's not even close to the most serious
issue with stuff we do distribute.
--
Raul
Reply to: