Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

["Joe Moore" <joemoore@iegrec.org>]

Henning Makholm said:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
>
>> >      If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
>> allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for
>> him, to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still
>> distribute the unmidified manuals with the Invariant Section in
>> it.
>
>> Didn't we just say we're not making exceptions for things that are
>> "sufficiently non-software-like"?
>
> No, we just said that license text are sufficiently non-software-like to
> enjoy an exception.

I think the key reason (that licenses are acceptable invariant texts) is
that the license text is a legal agreement between _you_ and the
_copyright holder_.  I can not change the agreement you have with the
copyright holder, only you and she can.  If you and she change your
agreement (either by explicitly licensing under an alternative license, or
implicitly by the holder changing the license, and you agreeing to those
terms*) I have no control over that.  I can not modify someone else's
agreement.

That is why the license texts must be "invariant".

--Joe
* For example, if the work was originally released under a "non-commercial
use only" license, but is later also released under the GPL, you might
agree to the GPL's terms rather than the "non-commercial use only".