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

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

RMS said:
>I've looked at the problems people have reported.  Many of them are
>misunderstandings (what they believe is not allowed actually is
>allowed), many of these cases have adequate workarounds, and the rest
>are real inconveniences that shouldn't be exaggerated.
OK... but...
>I've explained
>examples of all of these.
Actually, that's where you're wrong. You *haven't* explained examples of all of these, and some of those explanations you have given have been found woefully insufficient. (Of course, *you* don't need to do this; I'm sure you're very busy. Any official representative of the FSF would do just fine.)

-- I couldn't find a single instance of a 'misunderstanding' explained by you. In a few cases, you claimed that something was allowed by fair use, but you were in fact wrong for at least the UK. -- The only instance of an 'adequate workaround' I saw was a license incompatibility problem, where you claimed that it was 'always better' for a manual to be separate from the code and read by the code. Several people felt that this was not an adequate workaround for the incompatibility, let alone 'better'. -- Pretty much everything else you responded to, you said was an inconvenience being exaggerated, but was not non-free because it was only a 'packaging restriction'. (An interesting point, certainly. Although it took a ridiculous amount of time before we managed to get this statement on why you believed non-removable sections did not render a document non-free; previously we'd been trying to guess your position, which doesn't usually work.) Several people tried to open a debate about the issue of when a restriction is a packaging restriction and when it's a fundamental restriction, since they disagreed. You refused to discuss this.

>The only real problems seem to come from incompatibility of licenses.
I'm glad you recognize those problems. :-) Happiness! Now, does the FSF have plans to do anything about them? If so, great! If not, why not?


Reply to: