The very text of the GFDL which you quote gives permission for
translations as the *only* kind of derivative work possible for
Invariant Sections: in particular, annotations are not permitted.
Either way, we've gotten way off on a tangent. The GFDL does not meet
the DFSG. I present two pieces of evidence:
1. Invariant Sections fail DFSG points:
1. Multiple DFSG works on different subjects, all with the
Invariant Section "Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation" may
not be combined into a book "Free Documentation For Free Software,"
as the Invariant section would no longer be Secondary.
2. The transparency requirement allows distribution in some
compiled forms (e.g. plain text) but not in some source forms
(e.g. MS Word)
3. The license does not allow arbitrary derived works: indeed, it
prohibits any derived work but translation for some sections, and
it universally forbids excerpts
4. There is no explicit provision for patch files to modify
Invariants.
6. Those fields of endeavor which suffer from tight restrictions on
space or bandwidth are discriminated against by Invariant
Sections.
2. The clause regarding technical measures to prevent further copying
violates DFSG points:
6. The license discriminates against use for Digital Rights
Management technology.
5. The license discriminates against the manufacturers of
DRM-enabled storage devices.
1. A copy may not be made into a protected environment: this means
the document may not be freely distributed.
Do you have any refutation for this? Not "The DFSG doesn't apply to
documentation" -- I've just packaged up SniffMacs, my set of TECO
macros for nasal manipulation, and wish to distribute it under the
GFDL. Can Debian distribute it? Even if it has Invariant Sections?
-Brian
