Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
>>
>> > alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation
>> > (containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant sections.
>>
>> This might be a reasonable thing, but it is not what the GFDL requires.
>
> actually, it is. the GFDL explicitly says that you can provide a link to
> an internet site - and, contrary to loony zealot propaganda, it does not
> say that you must operate or maintain that site yourself.
This provision allows you an exemption from the "Transparent copy"
requirement; it does not allow you an exemption from the invariant
sections requirements, as you note:
> this is for Opaque copies, such as printed on paper or even the
> apocryphal and much-whinged-about coffee cup. for Transparent copies,
> it doesn't matter - even the most pedantic whinger is going to find it
> hard to credibly claim that having to include some extra files in the
> document or in an appropriate directory is a huge inconvenience. it's
> not. quit yer whining and find something useful to do.
A doc string in a GPL'd program is hardly irrelevant; or a reference
card, or, for example, use in another manual.
Reply to: