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

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 12:34, Henning Makholm wrote:
>      Of course both of these limits are
>      judgement calls, and each particular Invariant-But-Removable
>      section will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
>      [Hmmm.. so I think at least, but I'm not sure that this is
>      a clear d-l consensus. -HM]

I don't think invariant-but-removable sections are OK; we'd certainly
never accept things like that anywhere else, and I don't think that
compromise would buy anyone much:

   If I am the author of a work, why would I want it? The only
   reason I'd have to make something invariant would be
   something like the manifesto, which contains my beliefs,
   arguments, etc. But would it not be a better solution to
   require that if its changed, it is clearly changed to show
   may not represent my views anymore?

   If I am the author, I could _possibly_ use one for an
   endorsement of the work, by e.g., making a statement in a
   removable invariant section that I endorse the work with a given
   MD5sum (calculated assuming the listed md5sum is all 0's, of
   course), but upon further reflection I don't need an invariant
   section for that: I could use gpg, or I could just include that
   statement anywhere in the document. Changing it to state I
   endorse a document I do not is already illegal. I don't need
   license conditions to make it so.

   If I am a distributor, sure, I can rip them all out, but not
   having them in the first place is better for me.

I can see the motivation for non-removable invariant sections; they can
be used for things like credits, dedications, odes to my pet anteater,
etc. They just aren't free.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: