On Saturday 20 September 2003 11:08, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > On Saturday 20 September 2003 02:16, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > You seem to be suggesting that this would satisfy the distribution > > > terms of the GFDL. Are you really suggesting this? If so, we may have > > > a solution. > > > > Unfortunately, the invariant sections are not the only issue for > > non-freeness of GFDL. > > Please, try to be constructive. The invariant section is the only > (apparently) philosophical issue. The others issues are clearly > practical, it's easier to get rid of it.
Invariant section is a philosophical issue with a (proposed and discussable) practical solution, while others issues you say are practical would need philosophical solutions... i.e. changing the license itself. Which one is easier ? Mike
