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

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

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:14:22PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> 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
> > -->
> [...]

Hmmm... my example may have been confusing.
> 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.

You are talking "Invariant Sections" (capitalized) in GFDL.  I, also
Adeodato Simó I think, use lower case "invariant section(s)" which is
combination of "Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and
Dedications" being "invariant sections" which suffer restriction in GFDL

> 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.)

That why we need some space for judgement based on each case.  

> But I don't know whether I would consider it free or not.

I do not either until I see real case.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: