Re: A possible GFDL compromise
> If the license for the code did not allow modification, you could not
> make it implement different behavior. You would substantively lack
> the ability to change the functionality. That is a lack of real
> freedom.
I fail to see how this differs from an invariant section. (We can't
add a change file to the invariant section before building the
"binary", so that's moot.)
> That is possible. In the same way, he could be in a country that
> prohibits the functionality of the program, [...]
I thought about that, but those are technical problems innate in free
software. The problems with the invariant sections are political, not
innate and unnecessary.
> You would likewise be free the GFDL-covered manual for the robot to
> document your baby mulcher. Inclusion of invariant sections, if any,
> would not stop you from making it a useful and accurate manual for the
> mulcher.
I can't ship a manual for the baby mulcher to my customers that
execrates the baby mulcher.
I don't see much point in continuing this conversation. You see the
problems with invariant sections; you just don't think they're important.
As for me and most of Debian's maintainers, they are important enough
to make stuff with invariant sections non-free.
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers
Reply to: