Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

["Sunnanvind" <sunnanvind@fenderson.com>]

> > But it's becoming clear to me that there are only two people who
> think
> > we even need to worry about this at all.
> 
> Who's the other one?

Is it me?

I do think it's good if it's actually clarified somewhere that license 
texts (and copyright notices of course) are okay, and that some invariant 
sections are allowed, regardless of how obvious this might be to Bruce 
and Anthony.

I was cooking on a proposal very similar to Brandens.

I started this when I found how adamant Branden was in his interpretation 
of DFSG 3 and I think his position makes sense; it's written the way it's 
written.

If it's the number/percentage that's the problem, we could just say "a 
small amount, depending on the character of the invariant material" which 
would mean we wouldn't even have to be consequent. A license text could 
be very long, while a manifesto would have to be of more reasonable 
lengt. Which could very well be decided case by case on fiat or whim /as 
long as we know it's okay to do so/, i.e. it's written somewhere.

I'm following this thread, rest assured (or worried).

Sunnanvind Fenderson.