Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Joerg Wendland wrote:
>The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
>invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
>conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
>not want anybody to change that section, write anything into it that I
>do not agree with. The readers of that modified version will think it is
>my opinion they are reading thouhg it is not and may be even contrary to
>mine. What does that mean? When I am free to say what I want (freedom of
>speech, one of our highest goals!) I do want to keep to my words and do
>not want anybody to put words in my mouth I would never say.
As previously pointed out, the same is true of software. I could insert
anti-semetic messages into pam-pgsql and NMU it now. Perhaps you should
change your license?
>Nevertheless do invariant sections in document not prune your freedom in
>creating derived works. If the contents of a invariant chapter are
>wrong for example, you are free to insert a note somewhere saying that
>this chapter has to be there for license reasons but that it is simply
>wrong and the reader should read another chapter that rectifies that.
If Emacs had an invarient section discussing fishing and how this had
inspired the authoring of the manual, it would be awkward for me to
use chunks in my document on an application for recording fishing
statistics. And if you say "But why would you want to do that" then I'll
scream because that's entirely not the point.
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com