> >> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >>> Now, again, some restrictions on creating derived works are generally > >>> considered acceptable. But required inclusion of arbitrary lumps of > >>> text > >>> in a particular manner certainly isn't one of them (even with the > >>> oft-ignored GFDL restriction that they must be 'off topic').
> > On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:41:52PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > >> The oft-ignored restriction that invarient sections must be off-topic > >> probably just makes the DFSG 3 problems worse: It also limits derived > >> works to not covering certain topics (or, at least makes their status > >> *very* unclear if they do cover those topics). On May 9, 2004, at 13:53, Raul Miller wrote: > > Huh? This would be true if the rules about secondary sections applied > > to the document as a whole. > > > > But they don't. On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:32:36PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > WTF? Have you read the GFDL? Yes. > "A 'Secondary Section' is a named appendix or a front-matter section of > the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the > publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject > (or to related matters) AND CONTAINS NOTHING THAT COULD FALL DIRECTLY > WITHIN THAT OVERALL SUBJECT." (emphasis added) So? There's nothing that says that the entire document must be composed of only secondary sections -- and near as I can tell this point you're trying to make would only make sense if the entire document could only be composed of secondary sections. > > You'd havr even worse problems if you tried to include examples from > > two sources which had incompatible licenses. > > This has nothing to do with incompatible licenses. Both licenses are > GFDL. It has to do with the GFDL limiting (unintentionally) what can be > the topic of a derivative work. > > This is the same thing as when a license says "you can't use this code > in nuclear power plants"; its "you can't use this text in a essay on > freedom." I don't see how that could be true. Unless, that is, you have the idea that the document must be composed only of secondary sections and nothing else. -- Raul
