Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
Craig Sanders <email@example.com> writes:
> bullshit. "freedom", as used by Debian, is explicitly defined in the
> DFSG. the DFSG has a number of clauses detailing what we consider
> free and what we don't consider free. convenience is NOT one of those
> clauses, and never was. in fact, convenience is implicitly discarded as
> a criteria by the existence of the patch clause, which explicitly states
> that the major inconvenience of modification-by-patch-only is free.
Modifiability *is* one of those clauses, and a rule that says "you
cannot modify this essay" is in violation of that clause.
The *reason* why some care about this clause is for reasons to
do with convenience, practicality, or expense, or perhaps other
things. It is Anton's apparent conviction that the DFSG only demands
modifiability when it is necessary for convenience's or practicality's
sake. This is not *my* view. But it is interesting that *even* if we
adopt Anton's view, in which suddenly convenience and practicality
matter, we can think of reasons why the modifications in question
would be useful.
But let there be no mistake. My view (and, I think, Manoj's view), is
that the freedom to modify a manual by removing "invariant sections"
is one of the freedom's protected by the DFSG, and it is so whether it
is practically important to be able to do so or not.
Use of the word "bullshit" constitutes a violation of the policy for
this mailing list.