Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:38:30PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:53 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> > Unfortunately DFSG are not unambiguous and obviously the people
> > understand them in various ways.
> Well, the text in DFSG3 may be not well tight. But I think we should
> look at its direct reference, which can be said as the most sane
> interpretation. It's clear to me that there is a reference to freedom
> 1, and then, it can guide the interpretation of DFSG3.
I agree with you that there is a reference to freedom 1 (and also
freedom 3) so my interpretation of DFSG is probably the same as yours.
However other developers (for example Manoj) do not accept this
> So, In some cases removing the invariant sections is needed to adapt it
> to whoever needs (be it a library that wants to reduce paper cost, be it
> a embedded apps developer that wants to reduce disk usage,
If the invariant sections are unreasonably long then I'd agree the
document is non-free. However some developers object even short
> or be it a debian packager who wants to include part of some GFDL
> doc in a man page).
Here I explained why there is no problem with the man-pages:
> P.S.: One thing I don't know if has been already suggested to FSF is to
> require changing the work's name before removing the invariant sections,
> as it's clear to me that the invariant sections exists to preserve the
> author's integrity (in the sense of DFSG4), this way, it would fit in
> the exception already stated there.
FSF would not accept this. The purpose of the secondary sections is
to express "the relationship of publishers or authors of the Document
to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters)... The
relationship could be matter of historical connection with the subject
or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical,
ethical or political position regarding them".