Re: GFDL and cover texts
> [...] I can't think of any situation where the words "a GNU
> manual" could actually hinder anyone's use, modification or
> distribution of, well, a GNU manual. [...]
Of course not, because you just defined a tautology.
What happens if the GNU manual is modified to become something that
isn't in any way connected to GNU or not even a manual? Then that
cover text may make it unusable, possibly fraud and/or passing-off.
> Source tarballs under any license have an unmodifiable section in
> their license terms, and we tolerate that, but the GFDL is seemingly
> different because it forces GNU philosophy down our throats, right?
Mostly the unmodifiability is a consequence of copyright law and/or
the social contract anyway, as we need to give people a copy of that
It's not about the GNU philosophy. It's about forcing anything down
> in the case of cover texts, it very evilly reminds us that GNU had
> something to do with the writing of the manual, how dare they!
It's not about attribution. I'm sure that's explained in the links
which have been given.
Anyway, FSF objected to the Obnoxious Advertising Clause for years.
Should we like this ad clause just because it's in a GNU licence?
Hope that helps,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct