Re: GFDL (Was Re: documentation eq software ?)
bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
> The very text of the GFDL which you quote gives permission for
> translations as the *only* kind of derivative work possible for
> Invariant Sections: in particular, annotations are not permitted.
>
> Either way, we've gotten way off on a tangent. The GFDL does not meet
> the DFSG. I present two pieces of evidence:
>
> 1. Invariant Sections fail DFSG points:
> 1. Multiple DFSG works on different subjects, all with the
> Invariant Section "Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation" may
> not be combined into a book "Free Documentation For Free Software,"
> as the Invariant section would no longer be Secondary.
> 2. The transparency requirement allows distribution in some
> compiled forms (e.g. plain text) but not in some source forms
> (e.g. MS Word)
> 3. The license does not allow arbitrary derived works: indeed, it
> prohibits any derived work but translation for some sections, and
> it universally forbids excerpts
> 4. There is no explicit provision for patch files to modify
> Invariants.
> 6. Those fields of endeavor which suffer from tight restrictions on
> space or bandwidth are discriminated against by Invariant
> Sections.
>
> 2. The clause regarding technical measures to prevent further copying
> violates DFSG points:
> 6. The license discriminates against use for Digital Rights
> Management technology.
> 5. The license discriminates against the manufacturers of
> DRM-enabled storage devices.
> 1. A copy may not be made into a protected environment: this means
> the document may not be freely distributed.
>
> Do you have any refutation for this?
No refutation for this.
> Not "The DFSG doesn't apply to documentation"
Ok, that was my point.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: