Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:20:55PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Ability to modify and reuse a work are absolutely fundamental to a
> > work being Free. Promoting the distribution of a work by
> > prohibiting its modification is not a trade acceptable to free
> > software.
>
> You can modify it in the form of another invariant section. I don't
> see how this is substantially different than a work that only allows
> distribution of patches which would meet DFSG #4.
A work that only allows distribution of patches does not meet DFSG #4.
It must also specifically allow the distribution of modified binaries
made from those patches.
The GFDL fails to even do this, since you cannot distribute Opaque
version(s) of the work that exclude the invariant section(s).
[Frankly, works that do this should not be condoned, even if they are
tolerated.]
Don Armstrong
--
"There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the
right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself."
-- Bach
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: