Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The argument for that is that there are many > > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can > > be interpreted to accept it. > > The arguments appear to be: > > 1) There are many GFDL manuals. > 2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include. > > That's two parts out of the three I mentioned, and the third part is > crucial. The DFSG doesn't directly say anything against the > requirements of the GFDL. I sent another longer message explaining > why.
As a matter of fact, it does. The DFSG directly forbids Invariant Sections, which violate DFSG 4: the license restricts even source code (the "transparent form") from being distributed in modified form. Additionally, because Invariant Sections must be Secondary, the GFDL's implementation violates DFSG 6. There is *no* work of free software which can be created as a derivative work of a GFDL-licensed manual with invariant sections. Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code as well as compiled form". -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/