Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> writes:
> 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.
OK. So if I want to distribute just the "manual part" of a
manual... oh, look, I've got to bring all this peanut butter along.
The argument you now present was raised and defeated months ago.
Please go read the archives and think about what they say before
doing this. Or at least read Nathaniel Nerode's FAQ -- the link's in
the archives for this month.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Reply to: