Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: no significant invariant sections in main
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:22:11 +0900, Osamu Aoki <email@example.com> said:
> GFDL blah, blah,...
> Invariant section being following comment section in SGML
> chapter 1: author1_name firstname.lastname@example.org
> chapter 2: author2_name email@example.com
This cannot be an invariant section as defined by the GFDL, because the
GFDL says that an invariant section must be a secondary section, and a
secondary section must be a named appendix. A source comment is not a
Such a document would have to be licensed under a license other than the
That said, I understand the motivation of Osamu's proposal, and I would
consider invariant comments to be more acceptable than invariant
portions of the documentation. (Of course, the line again gets a bit
blurred when you consider documentation generated from the comments.)
But I don't know whether I would consider it free or not.
Hubert Chan <firstname.lastname@example.org> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.