FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

Frank Heckenbach frank at g-n-u.de
Thu Feb 23 21:14:16 UTC 2006

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

>    I do not understand "Q.E.D.". For the other part, if you understand
>    "run" as "read", which I think is quite appropiate, it works.
> QED means `quod erat demonstrandum', which is Latin for `which was
> demonstrated'.

Actually "which was to be demonstrated", BTW.

>    > > 	Sorry, but if the documentation of a free program has FDL,
>    > > then it can contain invariant sections, so that I am limited :)
>    >
>    > Wrong. Only if it _has_ invariants.
>    No. I'm limited because someone can insert invariant sections
>    later, a newly modified derivation. I can't reuse that derived
>    version without taking the invariant section with it. :-)
> You can't take a GPLed licensed work without licensing the derived
> work under the same terms as the GPL.  So you cannot reuse the
> resulting work under a GPL-incompatible license.

But you can reuse parts of the work under a GPL-compatible license.
And it's up to you which parts you take.

> Nothing different
> for the GFDL.

Quite different for the GFDL. You can reuse parts of the work under
a GFDL-compatible license, and you can choose which parts of the
non-invariant sections you take, but you always have to take all of
the invariant sections.


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