[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section

Mikko Moilanen wrote:

>"People" dont have to read them. They can just skip them. Certainly
>nobody shall be forced to read my statements. But I think that I have
>the right for example say that "help the poor children in Uganda" in
>my document acknowledgements or dedication page. I should also be
>allowed to include "GNU is my reason to live" in dedication page or on
>front page without them to be removed in derivate works. Why? Because
>I should have the right to walk on streets safely.

Do you believe that software with unalterable and unremovable political
statements would be free?

>Are you trying to decrease my freedom? 

No. You're welcome to add sections - you're even welcome to make them
invarient. Your freedom is unaltered. But unless we have the freedom to
remove or change them, it's likely that it won't be distributed.

>As in GNU FDL reader or publisher of my document "pays" to me by
>taking invarient sections with document. In GNU GPL user "pays" by
>contributing changes. In both licenses user pays by contributing
>changes. In both licenses there are things which have to be
>included. Those things are actual licencing statements. If GNU FDL
>forces one to include invarient sections, cover texts and
>acknowledgements (if writer so chooses) then I dont see very big
>difference from copyright texts from source files. Both just "have" to
>be included and the actual "source" is changeable and readable with
>ease with computers.

Copyright sections are generally required by law. 

Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org

Reply to: