Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
On 13 May 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> 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.
[excellent examples of why GFDL is bad for publishers]
> 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.
I'm probably going to get shot down for this, but I have to espouse my
theory on what's going on with the GFDL and GPLv3 (which, from everything
I've heard, is likely to have some Invariant Sections nonsense in it, as
well).
The GNU people have been working at building a free OS for many years (at
least 20, I think) and were planning on freeing the world of their lock-in
software shackles.
Then along comes Linus, and the world goes "oooh, shiny!" and ignores or
trivialises GNU in the rush to become part of the cool new thing.
<nice interpretation>
RMS and co get very offended at this, feel that it's starting to look like,
even if the world does all go Free Software, that they won't have the
indoctrination in Free Software ideals to be able to keep it up. They vow
to ensure that the whole world knows the true virtuous glory of true Free
Software.
</>
<cynical interpretation>
GNU is pissed that they're not getting all the glory and are trying to use
their licences to push their agenda to the detriment of true freedom.
</>
I'd like to believe the former. I think, deep down, that it's probably the
first on a conscious level, but it's the latter driving deep in the psyche.
Can't totall fault that - one tends to get rather protective of one's life's
work...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#include <disclaimer.h>
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
Reply to: