Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
@ 10/05/2004 21:56 : wrote Anthony DeRobertis :
2) The GFDL says that invariant sections must be secondary sections.
(This seems to confuse people; I believe the -legal archives contain
an instance where the FSF had a non-secondary invariant section. But
this isn't a freeness problem in itself, just a gotcha.)
About this, I must say: I think this (invariant sections must be
secondary) applies only to derivative works (because the original
copyright holder has The Power). What would render the documents
containing primary-invariants effectively unmodifiable, because you
can't remove the invariant, and you can't distribute a modified version
with primary-invariants. Heheh. Hell of a gotcha, unh?
--
br,M
Reply to: