Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 08:27:19AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 05:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > In particular: for emacs21, ``with the Invariant Sections being "The
> > GNU Manifesto", "Distribution" and "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE"'', and
> > for gdb ``with the Invariant Sections being "A Sample GDB Session" and
> > "Free Software"'' and ``with the Invariant Sections being "Stabs Types"
> > and "Stabs Sections"''
>
> While in general I must say that I agree with Branden on this issue, I'm not
> yet completely convinced, and one reason was brought home to me by the
> above: I large majority of our software ships with the file COPYING, which
> states "changing it is not allowed". Combined with the requirement in
> section 1 that the GPL be given to any recipients of the program, this
> strikes me as similar to the invariant section. It leaves me wondering if
> we are being a bit hyopcritical about it.
>
> At the same time, I see no value in making cover sections, etc. of manuals
> invariant.
>
> Any thoughts on that?
It seems that we have an implicit exception that legal
statements about a work about allowed to be non-free. That seems to be
quite reasonable since tampering with copyright statements is not
allowed in many countries, and also since many licenses are also
non-free. I don't mind works where it is manditory to reproduce:
Copyright (C) 2003 J. R. Hacker. This manual is free documentation;
yada yada yada. You should have received a copy of the license
along with this manual; if not, write to Fubar, Inc. 123 Sesame St,
New York, NY 10023, USA.
There is ample precedent for putting these little notices on all
sorts of things, typically in fine print. Look, I even have a serviette
on my desk that says "(C) 2003 DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES INC. All rights
reserved."
Simon
Reply to: