FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

Alfred M. Szmidt ams at gnu.org
Sat Feb 25 11:04:18 UTC 2006

   >    > > 	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.

You can't reuse a non-GPL compatible work with a GPL licensed work, I
fail to see the point.  If they are incompatible, well, then they are
incompatible.  This doesn't change the freeness of the license.

   > 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.

Not different at all.  With GPLed compatible works you need to take
the copyright list, if the extra inclusion of some text is so annoying
to you, don't use the work.  It still doesn't change the fact that the
GFDL is a free documentation license.

More information about the Discussion mailing list