Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
There is no rule which say that "every bits of a file can be
modified"; but there are law which says that you must be able to
use your freedom.
I'm not sure what else you can reasonably interpret DFSG 3 as meaning.
I understand this rule as "can we pratically make derived work or
Like what? We've already given examples where we cannot "pratically
make [some] derived work[s]" because we are unable to modify or remove
certain parts of the documentation.
To interpret it as "every bit of a file can be modified" is in my
opinion not the same and lead to clearly absurd situations.
Your interpretation would allow authors to identify any part of the
work that they wished as invariant, and then would claim that it is
I spoke on a typical GNU manual; not on every hypothetical work based on
the same license.
The very fact that you cannot easily construct a bright line test to
even begin to determine which works with such unmodifiable parts are
free and which are not should give you pause before continuing to
advocate your position.
But very bright lines does rarely exists in the reality. Whatever rules
you put there will be grey aera. I just think that GNU manuals are still
on the good site of the line.
Debian has already accepted resctriction similar to the GFDL
(acknoledgement of the BSD license etc,...); the invariant
sections are in nature not more (these are acknoledgement for the
GNU project; and yes it a bit longer).
Save for the fact that they're not invariant, or you don't actually
have to include those sections. [And yes, many of us do have
problems with GPL 2c as well.]
The advertising clause of the original BSD license must be included
unmodified. This is a small invariant section; which shows that the
DFSG3 must not be interpreted as "every bit of a file can be
It only must be included in an advertisement advertising features of
the program which are included; thus, "you don't actually have to
include those sections." [My own personal opinion is that this clause
is not one that should be found in Free Software, even though it meets
the DFSG, but that's my opinion outside of what the DFSG says.]
So that they must be included in every advertisement about Debian
(provided that Debian still ship work based on this license). That is
more annoying as to be obliged to include a few kilobyte in a package.