Re: Anton's amendment
Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> writes:
> It does prohibit code reuse, which I think is one of the things under
> discussion here. Code under this license can't be mixed with code under
> the GPL, as I'm sure you're aware. Similarly one could say the GFDL
> does not prohibit modification of the program, merely of *part of the
> manual*.
The fact that licenses are incompatible is not a DFSG problem.
Of course, the GFDL doesn't prohibit modification of the program; this
is not in dispute. The problem is that the GFDL'd doc cannot, itself,
be modified at liberty.
> So would an invariant section that only preserved attribution be free?
> If so, why?
How is such a thing invariant? We *already* have the case of the GPL,
which is DFSG-free, and which requires attribution. This does not
impede a problem. What is an "invariant section" which can be changed
at liberty, provided you retain an authorship credit? I think such a
thing is (1) free, and (2) not invariant.
Reply to: