Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Scripsit MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>
> It is a shame that debian-legal seems to be the largest visible group
> getting indigestion from this problem. The argument that we should aid
> unfree book producers seems as reasonable as the argument that we should
> offer concessions to unfree software producers: not at all.
The funny thing is that none, or only a tiny portion of, the
non-free aspects of the GFDL would be of any "aid" to hardcopy
publishers.
Which publisher would actively prefer to publish a book with Invariant
Sections in it, over the same book where the sections were free?
Which publisher would actively prefer to publish a book with mandatory
Cover Texts that at best is what the publisher would put on the cover
himself anyway and at worst are wrong or obsolete or (worst!) appeals
that the the customer should buy the book from another publisher?
Which publisher would actively prefer to publish a book that came with
fuzzy and (according to some people) possibly harmful rules about
"Opaque" and "Transparent" formats, over the same book licensed
without these problems.
Which publisher would actively prefer to publish a book in a foreign
translation when largish sections must be retained in English, as
opposed to a book where it would be legal to translate everything
and not risk scaring readers away because the book is apparently
partly in English?
Which publisher would actively prefer to publish a book where he was
legally forbidden to have a graphic designer design an appealing cover
(by the "equally prominent and visible")?
Exclude from "publisher" in all these cases a hypothetical zealous
author who is his own publisher and wants to make it inconvenient
for other people to publish hardcopies that compete with his own - he
does not need a "free" license at all to do so.
No, the "we want to be nice to publishers" theory is at best
a misrepresentation of the FSF's intention (I don't see it
in the GFDL preamble), at worst a diversion tactic.
--
Henning Makholm "We will discuss your youth another time."
Reply to: