On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of > a GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG > or the social contract?
because the GFDL is not a non-free license. GFDL invariant sections do not make a document non-free. see DFSG patch clause. > Specifically, I am looking at the SC: > >> 1. Debian will remain 100% free > > And the DFSG: > >> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must > >> allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license > >> of the original software. > > We would need to change the must allow modifications bit, as I > see it -- since a license attached to a work must allow modifications > to the work, as it is currently stated. (I do not consider the > license to be part of the work). no, it's not necessary to change anything. DFSG patch clause. read it. explains all. restricting modifications to original + patch only is explicitly permitted. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]