Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Joe Moore wrote:
JM>> The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
JM>> invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
JM>> conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
JM>> not want anybody to change that section, write anything into it that I
JM>> do not agree with. The readers of that modified version will think it
JM>> is my opinion they are reading thouhg it is not and may be even
JM>> contrary to mine. What does that mean? When I am free to say what I
JM>> want (freedom of speech, one of our highest goals!) I do want to keep
JM>> to my words and do not want anybody to put words in my mouth I would
JM>> never say.
JM>The trouble with that example is that the invariant section does
JM>_not_ protect your opinion.
Мaybe. Maybe (I cannot speak for anyone else, but it seems
for me that...) invariant section protect the users (particularly,
creators of derivative works) of document from an accusation in the
infringement of attribution rights. Not a perfect protection, but
better than nothing.
This issue (personal, or "moral", author's rights) is not
popular in USA and do not exist in USA for a software. But for
documentation it exist even in USA.