On Tue, 13 May 2003 20:38:51 +0200 firstname.lastname@example.org (Jérôme Marant) wrote: > Could we consider some invariant sections as "non-problematic"? Invariant sections aren't the only part of the license that's problematic, they're just the most obscene. So far, I've seen them used in a way that I found personally quite offensive. But I can't modify it, so I'm screwed. (Incidentally, copyright licenses are always considered "invariant" :) > You mentioned in a previous mail packaging old versions of manuals. > This is IMHO pretty useless because noone cares for outdated manuals. > Althought people can be motivated in forking or reimplementing > applications, I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to fork > documentation and noone'll be able to be as up-to-date as the > Emacs manual. Agreed. I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a Free typesetting application ... oh, wait. I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a robust set of graphics drivers for *nix ... oh, wait. I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a license which ensures that everybody will always have access to the source code of an application ... oh, wait. Maybe I don't agree.
Description: PGP signature