Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text
Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:31:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I prefer a proportional limit for two reasons. First, a fixed limit
> > invites the abuse of splitting a big invariant thing into a bunch of
> > packages. Second, a proportional limit guarantees that we get some
> > real fully-free documentation along with the invariant text.
>
> I think it's time for some solid definitions here. The term "invariant",
> as used in the GFDL, refers to material that is nonmodifiable and
> nonremovable. You would not be able to get around a fixed limit by splitting
> up a package, because each partial package would have to contain all of
> the invariant text.
Right, but the fixed limit proposal would extend beyond just the
GFDL. Perhaps a developer writes a horrid novella, and puts one short
bit in each of many packages, marked invariant. They have thus
subverted the point of the restriction by splitting their crap into
many packages. A proportional test at least requires them to write
proportionately that much real worthy stuff, I hope.
> I myself have a far bigger objection (in terms of Freedom) to
> nonremovable text than to nonmodifiable. I don't mind that the GNU
> Manifesto is nonmodifiable, and I think it's appropriate for the
> Debian Project to publish that document. But I do not think that
> a manual with any invariant text is "real fully-free documentation".
> It is documentation that _would have been free_ except for the invariant
> text attached to it.
Yes, in this discussion I think people have been conflating
nonremovable as just one kind of nonmodifiable, but you are right that
it is especially worse, I think.
> I don't think we should accept any manual with invariant sections
> as free; but as a compromise, I would support a policy that identifies
> a specific set of texts as acceptable. I'm opposed to any generic
> limit based on size. Software projects do merge and share code, and
> at some point they may have to share parts of their manuals. This means
> that invariant sections will gradually multiply and spread to the manuals
> of related programs. We should keep a tight rein on their numbers, and
> we should judge based on content as well as (fixed) size.
It sounds like you agree with the spirit of Anthony Towns's proposal?
Reply to: