On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:31:18AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > The current opinion of FSF, at least.
I know the policies of FSF well enough to be confident that this is not just "current opinion". This has always been the opinion of FSF. > In the past, RMS has worked against advertising clauses far less > obnoxious than the FDL ones. You could summarise what's happening > today with http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html and doing > s/BSD/FDL/g; s/sentence/chapter/g; s/system/manual/g; s/University > of California/GNU Manifesto/g and similar In 2003 Stallman tried to explain in debian-legal the difference between invariant sections and the advertising clause. If you use a software with advertising clause then you are obliged to say some fixed sentence whenever you are mentioning some features of that software. If you write completely independant program and it mentions these "features" your program has to display this fixed sentence. If you are writing some documentation that mentions these "features" you also have to add the fixed sentence. Think now what would happen if you use quiet a large number of programs that are licensed in this way. On the other hand invariant sections apply only to documents that are derivatives of the initial document. This is much easier to keep requirement and thats why FSF considers it acceptable for the GNU project. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
