[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)


There are a few questions from previous mails that I consider important,
which you elided from your replies.  I am intensely interested in your
answers to these questions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you
could take some time to answer them.

Your answers to my other questions have been, for the most part, quite
elucidating.  Thank you.

> I thought about the ethics of this issue long ago, and decided that
> invariant sections are legitimate.

Where is your ethical analysis articulated?  It would be particularly
helpful if you would explain if and why the arguments presented in


do not apply to documentation as they do to software.

> We want to encourage widespread use of the FDL for two reasons:
> 1. It leads to a pool of text that can be copied between manuals.
> 2. It is (or at least ought to be) good for helping commercial
> publishers succeed publishing free manuals.

I do not understand how the traditional GNU documentation license,
without their proto-invariant sections, does not achieve either of the
above goals.  Perhaps there are other reasons, not enumerated above,
that you would like to see the GNU FDL widely adopted?

> Those are our goals for wanting the GNU FDL to be widely used, but
> those are not our only goals in choosing licenses for our manuals.

What are the other goals?

G. Branden Robinson                |    It was a typical net.exercise -- a
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    screaming mob pounding on a greasy
branden@debian.org                 |    spot on the pavement, where used to
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    lie the carcass of a dead horse.

Attachment: pgpbtcdG_kUcy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: