Re: A clarification for my interpretation of GFDL [was: Anton's amendment]
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:31:18AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> The current opinion of FSF, at least.
I know the policies of FSF well enough to be confident that this is
not just "current opinion". This has always been the opinion of FSF.
> In the past, RMS has worked against advertising clauses far less
> obnoxious than the FDL ones. You could summarise what's happening
> today with http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html and doing
> s/BSD/FDL/g; s/sentence/chapter/g; s/system/manual/g; s/University
> of California/GNU Manifesto/g and similar
In 2003 Stallman tried to explain in debian-legal the difference
between invariant sections and the advertising clause.
If you use a software with advertising clause then you are obliged to
say some fixed sentence whenever you are mentioning some features of
that software. If you write completely independant program and it
mentions these "features" your program has to display this fixed
sentence. If you are writing some documentation that mentions these
"features" you also have to add the fixed sentence. Think now what
would happen if you use quiet a large number of programs that are
licensed in this way.
On the other hand invariant sections apply only to documents that are
derivatives of the initial document. This is much easier to keep
requirement and thats why FSF considers it acceptable for the GNU
project.
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: