Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is actually the fourth draft, but wanted to polish it a bit before > everyone got to see it: > > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt
Nice piece of work, thanks! ... > I expect controversy over section 4 primarily with perhaps minor complaints > about 2, 3 and 10. Let me explain my reasoning a little: > > I approach this primarily from a pragmatic point of view (from a "our > priorities are our users and free software" PoV if you want to think in > terms of the social contract). The GNU manuals are useful and important. > They have always had the restriction on being able to remove the GNU > manifesto and it really wasn't a problem until the GFDL put the issue > in everybody's face. Of course there is the tension between that and "a > reasonable licence to pass on to our users". I think that since we have always kept manual with the previous license in main, it would be indeed unfair not to act the same way with GFDL manuals. That said, I guess that there are differences between program authorship and documentation authorship, in a legal sense (for instance, manuals are likely to be printed) and this may be roots of justification of invariant sections. Would you have more details? Cheers, -- J�r�me Marant http://marant.org
