Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue

[Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:30:12PM -0700, Adam McKenna 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.

I don't see how it's similar.  Patches only work for software because they're
applied at *build* time, so they complicate the maintainer's job but the user
doesn't see it.[1]

This logic would seem to argue that an entire document under a "modification
completely prohibited" license is free, because you can attach errata
to the document.  Errata is not analogous to build-time patching.

> Only the invariant sections cannot be changed.  The rest of the work (the
> important part) can be.

The DFSG applies to the entire work.  If any one part of a work fails
the DFSG, and that part can not be excised, the whole work fails.  A
program whose license says "distribution and modification for free, but
if you distribute this one source file (out of thousands), pay me $100"
is non-free if we can't delete that source file.


[1] Tangent: even so, patch clauses effectively prohibit code reuse, one
of the most fundamental benefits of free software--I don't understand why
that's acceptable ...

-- 
Glenn Maynard