Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences

["Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <jordigh@gmail.com>]

On 03/06/07, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> > Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
> > GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
> > how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia,
> > the largest collection of "software" (as Debian calls it) under the
> > GFDL?
>
> Please read the part about invariant sections on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights -- in a quite convoluted
> way they say "you may add invariant sections and cover text only if they're
> neither invariant when it's technically possible to change them, nor
> unremovable, nor placed on cover of any kind".  Ie, you can't have them.

Yes, so how has the GFDL hurt Wikipedia? And how the hell are you
going to justify adding an invariant section to Wikipedia since the
breadth of its content is all of human knowledge and invariant
sections can only deal with subject matter that is not related to the
main subject of a GFDLed doc?

I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL. In the
meantime, "man gcc" still says here that gcc has no manpage, contrary
to Debian policy.

- Jordi G. H.