As far as I know, the Debian Free Software Guidelines consider this license non-free because it accepts "invariant sections". The whole idea behind them was to prevent the removal/edit of "political sections" such as the GNU manifesto. To me it makes sense that such sections should not be allowed to be modified because, writing them, their authors personally engage themselves. I am not sure whether the GNU FDL allows a section of "proper documentation" to be made invariant. If so, that indeed looks problematic.
The main (if not only) difference between FSF's and Debian's definitions of
free indeed relates to the GNU Free Document License. It is wrong to write
that the FSF only cares about software and not about its documentation. After
all, it is the author of the GNU FDL!
- Re: [Trisquel-users] vrms sirgrant
- Re: [Trisquel-users] vrms adrian . malacoda
- Re: [Trisquel-users] vrms Igor . Zobin
- Re: [Trisquel-users] vrms migatheotaku
- [Trisquel-users] Re : Re: vr... magicbanana
- [Trisquel-users] Re : Re: vr... mgervais
- [Trisquel-users] Re : Re: vr... magicbanana
- Re: [Trisquel-users] vrms adrian . malacoda
- Re: [Trisquel-users] vrms r . verzub
- Re: [Trisquel-users] vrms Michał Masłowski
- [Trisquel-users] Re : Re: vr... magicbanana
- Re: [Trisquel-users] Re : Re:... Michał Masłowski
- Re: [Trisquel-users] vrms andrew
- Re: [Trisquel-users] vrms roman . verzub
- [Trisquel-users] Re : Re: vr... magicbanana
- Re: [Trisquel-users] vrms Fabián Rodríguez
- Re: [Trisquel-users] vrms randuohang
- Re: [Trisquel-users] vrms 847785481
- [Trisquel-users] VRMS Mario Gervais
- Re: [Trisquel-users] VRMS Jos Collin