Re: GFDL freedoms
Matthew Wilcox <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> This is actually the fourth draft, but wanted to polish it a bit before
> everyone got to see it:
Nice piece of work, thanks!
> I expect controversy over section 4 primarily with perhaps minor complaints
> about 2, 3 and 10. Let me explain my reasoning a little:
> I approach this primarily from a pragmatic point of view (from a "our
> priorities are our users and free software" PoV if you want to think in
> terms of the social contract). The GNU manuals are useful and important.
> They have always had the restriction on being able to remove the GNU
> manifesto and it really wasn't a problem until the GFDL put the issue
> in everybody's face. Of course there is the tension between that and "a
> reasonable licence to pass on to our users".
I think that since we have always kept manual with the previous license
in main, it would be indeed unfair not to act the same way with
That said, I guess that there are differences between program authorship
and documentation authorship, in a legal sense (for instance, manuals
are likely to be printed) and this may be roots of justification of
invariant sections. Would you have more details?