Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org>]

Jacobo Tarrio <jtarrio@trasno.net> a tapoté :

> O Venres, 29 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:09:57 +0200, Mathieu Roy escribía:
> 
> > The DFSG itself does not meet the DFSG itself, if you think that no
> > text can be invariant.
> 
>  I believe that you can make modified versions of the DFSG, as long as you
> do not call the resulting document "The Debian Free Software Guidelines" or
> something similar that might confuse people.
> 
> 
>  Can't you?

I can do that. It means that I would be about to write a _new text_
_inspired_ by the DFSG and not editing the DFSG. The DFSG is invariant
just like the GPL and any other license.

Too bad, the DFSG still do not meet the DFSG if the GFDL do not meet
the DFSG.


Aside from that I think people should reread the GFDL.

        "A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
        the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
        publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject
        (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly
        within that overall subject.  (Thus, if the Document is in part a
        textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any
        mathematics.)  The relationship could be a matter of historical
        connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal,
        commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding
        them.

        The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles
        are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice
        that says that the Document is released under this License.  If a
        section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not
        allowed to be designated as Invariant.  The Document may contain zero
        Invariant Sections.  If the Document does not identify any Invariant
        Sections then there are none."

        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt

As you see here, these invariant section are not what I qualified the
"manual part" of a manual. Basically, the most important content of
the manual is not about to be invariant.

(That's why I said previously that this issue is anyway a waste of
time)



-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
    http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
    http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english