Re: debian and the fdl

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 07:26:56AM -0600, John Fleck wrote:
> Their argument, in a nutshell, is that the GFDL's ability to declare
> sections "invariant"[1] does not meet the Debian "free" test. Some
> apparently argue that a document declaring no such invariance is
> sufficient to meet the test. Barak Pearlmutter[2] makes the interesting
> argument that the stickiness of invariant sections raises the
> possibility of a GFDL document turning into essentially a huge billboard
> over the years:

  I raised the problem of the GFDL last year when it was suggested
to use it for docs. RMS never came back with a satisfactory answer from my
point of view, this just confirms my opposition to using the GFDL for
the GNOME project documentation, c.f. last year's thread:
  http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-January/msg00005.html

  IMHO whoever decided to make the switch should takes his responsability
and either get the problem fixed at the Licence level, or manage to get 
a suitable Licence and the authorizations needed to switch back to it.
The documentation for my code is under the same Licence as my code, 
it ships in the same package and don't turn my documentation into an
advertizing vector for the Licence itself.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/