Please see the threads that led to <http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001> for exhaustive discussion about the GFDL vs. the DFSG.
On 08/06/12 16:34, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > I cannot think of a case where someone > modifying the document would, when acting in a good faith manner, want > to alter this text. That would be fine if we (either Debian when redistributing the document, or someone wanting to alter the document later) could delete them - but clause 4L, and the first paragraph of section 5, forbid that. > would a > GFDL document that has no invariant sections be considered Free under > the current Debian guidelines? According to the General Resolution at <http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001>, yes. The GNU Libtool manual in libtool-doc is one example of a GFDL-with-no-invariant-sections document in main. (The GR was not unanimous - a significant number of Debian members would have preferred for libtool-doc to be excluded from main too.) > They have 4 licenses, all of which seem to serve a unique and > necessary role: GPL, LGPL, AGPL, and GFDL. The major reason I never want to put anything I write under the GFDL is that it has annoying practical consequences. The AGPL, GPL and LGPL (of the same version) are copyleft licenses with varying terms, but form a chain of compatible licenses in which you can combine works under any pair of those licenses, and put the result under the more restrictive license. The GFDL and GPL are mutually-incompatible copyleft licenses (each includes restrictions that the other does not), so you can't combine parts of a GPL'd work with parts of a GFDL'd work, under any license, unless you are the sole copyright holder on both. That's fine for GNU (the sole copyright holder on GNU projects, via copyright assignment), but an obstacle for the rest of the world. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
