Re: GFDL docs with no invariants considered free by Debian

>>>>> "Andy" == Andy Tai <[email protected]> writes:

    Andy> Hi, according to http://lwn.net/Articles/175451/, Debian
    Andy> voted and decided that they consider GFDL documents without
    Andy> invariant sections are free documents.

They decided they are _free documents_ or _free software_?  AFAIK
Debian doesn't care about the freedom of documents per se; they
simplify by including documentation in the class of software.

    Andy> This differs from my personal view that all GFDL documents
    Andy> are free,

You're welcome to your opinion about the freedom of the documents, but
IIRC even the FSF warns that GFDL is not a free software license.  (At
least if it contains cover texts and/or invariant sections.)

    Andy> This shall put the previous discussions about the use of
    Andy> GFDL acceptable or not for the GNU Arch project to rest.

Not really.  Use of the GFDL for documentation means that people may
derive documents from them that (without special permission) cannot be
adapted to Arch in the form of docstrings and internal help, simply by
using only the GFDL for that document.  (_Requiring_ dual-licensing is
incompatible with both the GPL and the GDFL.)

The problem described here is a cross that my project must bear
because we don't own all of our code; it's real.  And it really sucks.

And of course they can make the documentation non-DFSG-conforming by
adding invariant sections.

IMO, one should Just Say No, firmly, to copyleft license proliferation.

    Andy> (Not that these have been awaken for a while).

That's because there was a hard-won consensus that the small benefits
of the GFDL weren't worth the potential pain to future developers.

-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.