Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
> In the past, some of our manuals included invariant sections and some
> did not. Today that is still the case. However, in the past we
> needed an ad hoc license to have invariant sections. What changed
> with the GFDL is that it is a single license that covers both cases.
The GNU FDL does more than that.
The GNU FDL does many other things, but you raised the issue of
invariant sections, so my response focused on that issue. I therefore
did not mention other points about the GFDL which are not relevant to
that issue. When you criticize those omissions, you are in effect
criticizing me for doing what you asked me to do.
Could you offer me some criteria for evaluating the terms "pedantic" and
"minor"?
That would be an unnecessary digression. I used those words to make a
particular point, and I think my point was clear enough. I've
provided several examples of the pattern of argument I am talking
about. (Two in the last message, one above, and this one.) The
pattern should be clear. Another applicable term is "quibbling".
I'm not going to respond to the quibbles.
I don't think invariant sections are wrong, and you haven't convinced
me they are wrong. People have cited inconveniences, and I agree they
are inconveniences, but not major ones. This is not enough to make
the license non-free.
I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the
first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own
definition of free software which is different from ours. We also
disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending
non-free software.
Reply to: