[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GFDL and cover texts

My apologies, there were some inaccuracies in my initial reply, and it
was more dismissive than it should have been.

"Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <jordigh@gmail.com> writes:

> On 06/08/07, Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> wrote:
> > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
> The position statement and the vote all conflate invariant sections
> with cover texts and dedications as if exactly the same arguments
> against invariant sections applied to a cover text like "a gnu
> manual".

That's because the same arguments do apply. All works in Debian must
meet the DFSG; a work licensed such that any of it is unmodifiable
fails to meet DFSG §3.

Any work licensed under terms of FDL-plus-unmodifiable-sections thus
fails the DFSG.

> Why are three words enough to make thousands upon thousands of words
> nonfree?

when any part of a work is unmodifiable under the license terms, it
fails the DFSG.

Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> writes:

> Please read the list archives on these topics; they were discussed
> extensively around the time of the GR to which Manoj referred you.

My mistake; it was Evan who referred you to existing documents.

Those documents cover the issues you're raising; there's nothing I've
said in the above that isn't already addressed by the documents Evan
pointed you to.

 \       "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best |
  `\          way to predict the future is to invent it."  -- Alan Kay |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply to: