The first being the use of invarrient sections. If you just say nothing is invarient then it shouldn't be an issue.
The second which says that version 2 or any other later version... Well that assumes that later versions of the fdl license are ok with you. I would just reduce that to saying version 2 of fdl and if a later version of fdl comes out that is ok with you then update your document.
Steve Meier
Charles Lepple wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:33:22 +0000, Karel Kulhavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There have been severe disputes over FDL's freeness in Debian community.
...mostly relating to invariant sections, IIRC. Would you declare parts of the design to be invariant? How would you feel about people translating the assembly instructions?
IANAL, but I don't think the FDL has received as much legal scrutiny as the GPL. This is probably due to the notion that most of a project's intellectual property is contained in the code, as opposed to the documentation, and so the code license is debated and trampled on by the lawyers first.
