Re: documentation eq software ?
Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> writes:
> bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
>> >
>> > Please point out which parts of Emacs documentation are
>> > invariant. If I'm not mistaking, these parts express some personal
>> > feelings. Personals feelings are not something that can be enhanced by
>> > someone else.
>>
>> First, in English, variant and non-invariant are not synonyms:
>
> Ok.
>
>
>> There is a difference between variance and derivation. Nobody can
>> change the GPL -- not even the FSF. They could publish something new
>> called the GPL, which might derive from the older GPL. I might even
>> publish a work called "GNU GPL", though I would violate trademark law
>> to do so. Invariant sections are not merely invariant, but cannot be
>> used as the foundation for derived works.
>>
>> Arguments like those you present here, which assert that I could
>> somehow mystically change another's opinion by editing text he
>> produced, are not useful or interesting.
>
> If you edit the GNU Manifesto and redistribute under the same name,
> without telling clearly you modified it and what you modified, you
> distribute a text which may be taken as someone's opinion while it's no
> longer the case.
And this may violate fraud, libel, or trademark laws. It has nothing
to do with copyright.
Nice as it would be if the law were conformant with universal common
sense and gut feelings, it is not. You have not read enough to
comment usefully on copyright law and the freeness of various works:
in particular, you are raising common, easily countered arguments
which have been raised here many times before and are well-known to be
false.
>> The right question is not "Should I be able to change this document,
>> which carries an imprimatur from a trademark?" but "Should I be able
>> to derive works from this work?" or "Should I be able to use this
>> neat thing in making my own thing?"
>
> I think that when you read the GNU Manifesto and follow it's spirit,
> you're already "using this neat thing (an idea) making your own thing
> (a software)".
But it restricts the sort of software I may write: I may not write
works which are derivative works of the GNU Manifesto.
>> > If a text express a personal feelings, typo are not about to be
>> > fixed to enhance the text: it would change the nature of the
>> > text. Would you like to enhance Cicero, for instance?
>>
>> Certainly, I am glad Cicero's work is now Free: I've used several of
>> his techniques to enhance my own writing,
>
> I was speaking about enhancing Cicero itself.
What does that mean? I have written derivative works of Cicero's
works. Were he alive, his copyright would apply.
>> in some cases deriving from his text. I've also published
>> translations and annotated editions of his work. I cannot do this
>> with a GFDL Invariant Section.
>
> Annotation are not modifications to the text itself. I believe you are
> making a mistake:
> You can annotate and translate a Cicero's text, even if the whole
> original text is a GFDL Invariant Section: you just have to include
> this original invariant text. The GFDL does not forbid you to add your
> own annotations and your own translation along with the original
> text.
Certainly it does: at that point, the invariant text is no longer
Secondary.
-Brian
The whole idea of "Secondary Sections" seems increasingly ridiculous.
They lock in a particular purpose for a work.
--
Brian T. Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Reply to: