FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

Alfred M. Szmidt ams at gnu.org
Sat Feb 11 01:40:23 UTC 2006

   > A manual is a type of a book.  It makes sense for manuals as
   > well.

   Free manuals must not be restricted to only ever be distributed as
   books. The recipient should have the freedom to take pieces of the
   manual and distribute it in other forms, such as a reference card
   or sticker.

Should's and should not's.  I think a `fair use' clause like this in
the GFDL would be a good idea where you are not required to include
the invariant sections, etc.  But where should one draw the line?  And
where does copyright law draw the line? Berne is very vauge, and
leaves it to each country to decide.

   > the GFDL does not cause any problems with mixing code and
   > documentation in the same package.

   It causes direct problems with taking pieces of the FDL manual and
   putting it into GPL code, or vice versa. The result is not
   redistributable under either license.

If you are the copyright holder, or have a specific entity that is the
copyright holder, then this is no problem.  It is no different than
having a GPL incompatible license which happens to be a free software

More information about the Discussion mailing list