[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Yorick Cool wrote:

> Seeing as that is a void condition which is totally unenforceable[1], the
> license is just the same as if the condition were inexistent, so yeah,
> it's as good as free.

Ok, I think my point has been missed. After numerous examples (having to
carry around page after page of obselete invariant sections, possibly
not being able to distribute the document for devices not capable of
displaying all the world's languages, etc.) having all been dismissed as
 (paraphrasing) "not a freeness issue, just a convenience issue", I am
curious as to the people stating stuff like that define freedom, for in
the several dictionaries I have checked, it is always defined along the
lines of:

"the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity,
coercion, or constraint in choice or action"[0]

which, as I read it, includes convenience issues.

So I asked an example of a "convenience issue" that I hoped would be so
extreme that maybe, just maybe, we could agree that at some point,
inconveniences become large enough to impact freeness. Or, as Gledd
Maynard put it, "When people agree with the extreme case, and still
disagree with the argument, they've established outer boundaries to
narrow in on where they believe the line lies, and why; and it's a
useful step in determining when that line is blurry (where 'bright line
tests' don't exist)."[1]

I realize, also, that my quick example has violations of various clauses
of the DFSG.

[0]: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=freedom
[1]: Message-ID: <[🔎] 20060214235907.GI5993@zewt.org>

Reply to: