Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 03:40:11PM +0400, olive wrote:
> the open source movement and the FSF): it is astonishing that licenses
> that "does not follow the DFSG" does follow the law of the open source
> movement which are exactly the same ones!
So now we're being inconsistent because our conclusions differ from OSI's.
I'd argue against that, but it's an argument that's been made, in various
forms, a hundred times, and indicates a complete lack of background in
the topic. I just can't be bothered.
> I place value on free documentation but not on your definition of
> "free". GFDL can be modified, with the inconvenience of being obliged to
> include invariant section (which are non-technical).
Wow--you're actually arguing that invariant sections are free? (I
thought we were talking about the less blindingly obvious cases, like
anti-DRM restrictions or choice of venue--too many parallel threads,
perhaps.) This isn't a debated topic anymore; Debian agrees with me
unambiguously (see GR2004-003). It's just next to impossible make a
case, with a straight face, that a political essay attached to a
technical manual that can't be modified and can't be removed is Free,
and I have serious doubts about the priorities of anyone who's still
> Finally, both the FSF and the much bigger open source movement agree
> with me (more modestly, I should say that I agree with them), not with
> you. With these absurdly strict policies, Debian eventually does not
> agree with itself: it's own logos cannot be modified! which show that
> these policies were not what Debian want at its creation.
Using the logos as an argument is an act of desperation; I guess your
next argument will be unmodifiable license texts, just to complete the set.
(I'll stop wasting bandwidth with descriptions of exasperation now. I'd
have held to my last attempt and not replied, but my exasperation quota
filled and it had to drain somewhere. Sorry. :)