Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>> > It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on
>> > the second sheet and FSF wins more popularity. :-)
>>
>> This is just working around the issue.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
>> Let the sheet instead be a coffee cup; in Germany Lehmann's sell
>> cups with Emacs or vi commands on them. You can't add a second cup
>> for the invariant sections, even if they fit on it, since people
>> usually buy or donate (and use) only one cup at a time.
>
> The same trick works here - one cup and one sheet of paper. Not
> everybody will like that solution but it works.
Excuse me, you are telling me that a sheet of paper is a "front matter"
or "appendix" of a cup? How do you ensure that the "front matter" is
still readable after a couple of rounds of pouring coffee, spilling
coffee, and dishwasher use? Or are you trying to write a satire?
>> And that's what we want.
>
> Why? :-)
Because that's what the DFSG upon which we agreed requires ("derived
works").
>> Imagine that AUCTeX's manual was under GFDL, and I want to distribute
>> only file:///usr/share/doc/auctex/HTML/auctex/auctex_11.html (which
>> deals with language support) in a documentation bundle about "Optimizing
>> TeX workflow for i18n and l10n".
>
> It is not inconvenient to distribute auctex_11.html together with the
> invariant sections.
Of course it is - imagine that my documentation contains parts from 10
documents, all under GFDL, all using lots of invariant sections - that
would be more than inconvenient.
>> It might be possible to do this, but what if I don't want to distribute
>> the whole thing? Like because I'm only interested in one particular
>> part?
>
> Yes, you have to distribute the invariant sections.
So we agree that the GFDL fails the DFSG?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Reply to: