Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It does prohibit code reuse, which I think is one of the things under > discussion here. Code under this license can't be mixed with code under > the GPL, as I'm sure you're aware. Similarly one could say the GFDL > does not prohibit modification of the program, merely of *part of the > manual*.
The fact that licenses are incompatible is not a DFSG problem. Of course, the GFDL doesn't prohibit modification of the program; this is not in dispute. The problem is that the GFDL'd doc cannot, itself, be modified at liberty. > So would an invariant section that only preserved attribution be free? > If so, why? How is such a thing invariant? We *already* have the case of the GPL, which is DFSG-free, and which requires attribution. This does not impede a problem. What is an "invariant section" which can be changed at liberty, provided you retain an authorship credit? I think such a thing is (1) free, and (2) not invariant. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
