Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > The only "manpower" required should be a clause that allows converting > the document to be under the GPL, much like the clause used in the LGPL. > This would result in the most possible restrictions while still being > GPL compatible.
That would imply giving anyone the permission to modify the GPL, the LGPL, the GNU manifest, etc. if they are embedded in a manual. As long as they fit under the definition of a ``secondary section'' according to the FDL and are either the license or removeable; I don't see a reason not to distribute such ``invariant parts'' in main although they are non-free. Please note that this applies to both programs and documentation. It does not make a difference if the GNU Manifest is included an binary package or a manual packages: It's not needed for the software (program or documentation) to ``work''. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de -- http://www.bayern-gewinnt.de/
