Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill (was Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?)
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:57 +1100, Craig Sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> >>> the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an
> >>> internet address containing the full document.
> >> Please show me where the GFDL has such a provision. The passage that
> > i've shown it before. i have no interest in playing your time-wasting
> > game. go read the archives.
> You made the assertion that it was sufficient to just include a link to
> the full document (including invariant sections) or to just the
> invariant sections here:
yes, and it was an appropriate comment for the context in which it was
> [ blah blah blah]
> pointed out that the portion of the GFDL that you quoted is only an
> exemption from having to provide a transparent copy along with the
> text. It cannot be used as an exemption from having to include the
> invariant sections.
you're either getting confused or deliberately trying to confuse the issue.
i've never said that having to include invariant sections is a problem
that can be worked around - in fact, i've explicitly stated on numerous
occasions that it is not even a problem at all. at least, not a problem
with any freedom implications - it is a mere convenience issue, not a
inconvenience might be annoying, it might be a complete pain in the
arse, but that is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether
something is free or not.
having to include the invariant sections with whatever other portions
of a GFDL document you want to use may be inconvenient, but it does
not make it non-free. similarly, not being able to delete the implicit
invariant sections from source code (e.g. copyright notices and history)
may be very inconvenient to software plagiarists, but that does not make
it non-free either.
so, why does being required to have the invariant sections somewhere in
the package (say, somewhere under /usr/share/doc) qualify as non-free,
while being forced to have the copyright notice or whatever somewhere in
the package (also say, under /usr/share/doc) qualify as free?
because one is software and the other is documentation? congratulations,
you've achieved the bizarre state of simultaneously believing that
documentation is software and is not software at the same time.
there's no actual difference in the requirements. which doesn't make any
sense until you realise that you zealots have an agenda - to use the
GFDL to make debian take a moronic stand so you can try to exert power
over the FSF and force them to do your bidding.
> I do not see any reply to either my or Thomas' posts, and I am not
> aware of any other post on this issue that quotes from the GFDL. So
> as it stands, as I see it, there has been no proof presented from the
> GFDL that allows you to remove the invariant sections from a document
> and just include a link to the originals.
sorry, it's you loonies who have to prove that the GFDL is non-free.
you're the freaks making the claim, so you're the freaks who have to
prove that your claim is true. that's the way assertions and claims and
arguments work: make a claim -> back it up with proof.
given that you're disputing the FSF who are acknowledged experts in
the field of Free Software (certainly far more expert than a bunch of
nutcase zealots intent on derailing debian), your claim qualifies as
extraordinary - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
in this context, "extraordinary" means unambiguous, clear, and obvious
beyond any dispute.
the best you lot have managed so far is some lame posturing and a lot of
noise trying to fool people that convenience is a freedom issue.
craig sanders <email@example.com> (part time cyborg)