Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 07:13 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
------- http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html -------
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
You do realize that document is not what we're discussing here, right?
Since that document is a most marginally relevant, I hesitate to
discuss it here, but...
They can use, improve and distribute it by all useful means.
Unless the part the want to improve happens to be an invariant section,
for example.
Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor
as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual.
Thank you for begging the question, or at least one of them.
Would you like to offer some support as to why removing (or changing)
secondary sections can't be an improvement?
For example, suppose a document has many pages of secondary sections.
There are many reasons that removing those sections could be an
improvement:
o I would like to save on printing costs
o I need to take a hardcopy of the document with me, and I would
like to save on weight.[0]
o I am mailing hard copies of the document, and want to save on
postage.
o The numerous secondary sections get in the way of the primary
material, and removing them makes the document clearer.
There are numerous reasons changing them could be an improvement, too.
As an obvious one, the FSF's address has changed in the past.
Removing things from documents, like programs, can be a major
improvement.
Removing a section from document does not create autiorship
for derivative work, btw. Because, "the copyright in a compilation
or derivative work extends only to the material _contributed_ by the
author of such work" (USC T17 S103). If you not contribute anything,
you is not an author, regardless of how much you removed.
Not true. You need to look at Sec. 101, as well to understand this
paragraph:
"A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and assembling of
preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or
arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes
an original work of authorship. The term ''compilation'' includes
collective works."
I get a copyright on my compilation if my selection of pieces to
include, the way I arrange them, etc. in a way to create an original
work. The paragraph you quote above just says that my copyright on the
compilation only extends to the selection, arrangement, etc. of the
compiled words; not to the compiled works themselves.
i.e., it is not a violation of my compilation copyright to copy one of
the works I compiled together. It would be to copy the entire
compilation.
[0] If you've seen the sheer volume of some books, I hope you can
understand why the weight of them can be important.
Reply to: