Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
On 1/24/06, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> (2) all copyright holders state that the requirement "You may not use
> technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of
> the copies you make or distribute" in section 2 is waived with respect to
> copies you make and do not distribute,
> (3) all copyright holders state that the requirements of paragraph 3 of
> section 3 (regarding transparent and opaque copies) are waived,
> and
> (4) all copyright holders state that the requirements of section 4.I
> (requiring preservation of an entirely arbitrary History section) are waived.
As I understood it, Adeodato's and Fabian's proposals were there to
allow in main certain pieces of documentation (e.g GNOME's and KDE's)
which don't have Invariant Sections, and cannot otherwise be
relicensed (due to the death of some copyright holders).
What would be the point of your proposal? I mean, if this proposal
won, it would be exactly the same as if the "no GFDL in main at all"
proposal won. So, why have yet another option?
--
Besos,
Marga
Reply to: