Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Scripsit MJ Ray <email@example.com>
> > 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
> Which publisher would actively prefer to publish a book with [...]
Cutting out a bunch of very valid arguments (Invariant sections, front
cover text, etc)
> 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.
I think that may be the point of the license. It's not to make it easy
for a publisher to print and sell a free book written by a third party.
Indeed, the X license would be better for them in that case. It's to
make it palatable for a publisher to finance the writing of a new book
(under a somewhat free license) that other publishers can't easily rip
But I think the concessions made for this make it non-free.