Re: existing FDL documentation won't hurt
Again... this whole issue seems like it originated with me
misunderstanding Branden.
I somehow (don't ask me how) got under the impression that he thought
that the "Debian shall remain 100% free software"-part of the social
contract meant that every part of every piece of software should
completely pass DFSG §3.
This would mean that no invariant sections should ever be allowed. At
all. And that would then lead to that no invariant license texts (like
the GPL) would be allowed. (Branden's packages doesn't.)
At first, I thought this absurd... but the more I thought about it, the
more it made sense (okay, I have a twisted mind, bear with me) to me.
After all - how can what's actually written be interpreted any other
way? Sure, maybe people can "read between the lines" and see that "Of
*course* license texts and *some* invariant texts should be allowed",
but I don't easily take things for granted. (I'm so open-minded that my
mind sometimes gets cluttered...)
Then I started to propose how the DFSG could be clarified to resolve
this perceived issue. (Like explicitly stating what can be left
invariant and how much, like license texts and philosophical statements
of position.)
Meanwhile... on the other side of the galaxy...
Branden and RMS had a nice little flame war on a very similar topic,
probably sparked by my beloved confusion: What's there to prevent that
someone doesn't mark up a whole text as invariant?But... the FDL does
clearly state what might be marked invariant. (As I can proudly say that
I already knew! I did read the FDL... once... a long time ago.)
(Oh, and by the way, RMS kept ignoring me. That's really creepy, am I in
his killfile or something?)
Meanwhile... I went on and on about "the terrible issue that must be
resolved" and generally made a fool out of myself (it's all about
kicking ass and taking names anyway) about DFSG §3 and Invariant parts.
While Branden and his posse agreed to always be watchful of "supposedly"
FDL:ed documents that marks up things as invariant that can't be
invariant.
(And I went on and on, at that point thinking that maybe it's Branden
and Thomas that are the ones misunderstanding the issue.)
Then.
Bruce Perens stepped in and said something to the extent of:
"It's absurd! No one in their right mind could misunderstand DFSG §3 and
think that it meant that everything had to be modifiable!"
And I thought "Well, duh, of course it's absurd. Just because it's
absurd doesn't make it less true." (But I didn't say anything, I guess I
forgot or I was away or something, I don't remember.)
And Branden said "No, Bruce, read the thread, you fool, you foolish
fool!"
Meanwhile, everything seems settled and I finally realize that the only
one going on and on about DFSG §3 is me, so I shrug and go happily about
my confused ways and keep sending fan-letters to Thomas, Branden, RMS
and Bruce because I think they're cool generally and this scares them so
they hire the Stalking Police but it's okay.
So now I'm just basically sitting back to see what happens. My head
hurts. And I think I have a rash. Maybe I should eat something now.
Sunnanvind (queen of misunderstandings [but at least I can read license
texts])
PS.
Branden's right.
People should read the actual threads.
But Branden's also rude.
Which is cool generally.
But now you don't have to read the threads since I summed it up so
nicely and clearly.
Reply to: