On May 9, 2004, at 13:53, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:Now, again, some restrictions on creating derived works are generallyconsidered acceptable. But required inclusion of arbitrary lumps of textin 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.
WTF? Have you read the GFDL?"A 'Secondary Section' is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) AND CONTAINS NOTHING THAT COULD FALL DIRECTLY WITHIN THAT OVERALL SUBJECT." (emphasis added)
You'd havr even worse problems if you tried to include examples from two sources which had incompatible licenses.
This has nothing to do with incompatible licenses. Both licenses are GFDL. It has to do with the GFDL limiting (unintentionally) what can be the topic of a derivative work.
This is the same thing as when a license says "you can't use this code in nuclear power plants"; its "you can't use this text in a essay on freedom."