FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

Frank Heckenbach frank at g-n-u.de
Thu Feb 16 22:14:51 UTC 2006

simo wrote:

> To me it is more that invariant sections cannot be removed is bad, not
> that invariant are bad per se.
> I would prefer my opinion to be removed entirely than see them changed,
> so I welcome invariant sections to some degree but not the way they are
> made in the GFDL. I think that removable invariant sections would be a
> good thing.

I agree. But as I've proposed and asked before, do we really need a
revised FDL or other new license to achieve that goal? Wouldn't it
suffice to put the primary content under the (L)GPL and the
"invariant sections" under a simple unlimited-distribution,
no-modification license?

BTW, the author then has even the options of licensing the
"invariant sections" as a whole or each on its own, so that some of
sections may or may not be removed on their own, as he chooses.

One advantage would obviously be that the licenses used are well
understood, so there'd be little potential for unexpected surprises
(such as the "evil person adding invariant sections to FDL work"
scenario Alessandro and I described -- I supposed it wasn't the
intention of the FDL creators, but an unexpected consequence arising
from its complexities, or just from its being new and less well


Frank Heckenbach, frank at g-n-u.de
GnuPG and PGP keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan (7977168E)

More information about the Discussion mailing list