[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: no significant invariant sections in main

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:22:11 +0900, Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> said:

>  GFDL blah, blah,...
> Invariant section being following comment section in SGML
> <!--
>   chapter 1: author1_name name1@isp.dom
>   chapter 2: author2_name name2@isp.dom
> -->

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
named appendix.

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 <hubert@uhoreg.ca> - 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.

Reply to: