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

Re: Anton's amendment

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 14:40:44 +1100, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> said: 

> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:31:07AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > restricting modifications to original + patch only is explicitly
>> > permitted.
>> But one is supposed to be able to distribute the patched derived
>> work.

> yes, and you can. maybe not in the most convenient form that you
> would prefer, but that's irrelevent - DFSG requires freedom, not
> convenience.

>> In this case, I should be able to have the orig.tar.gz contain the
>> invariant, the diff.gz contain stuff to remove the invariant, and
>> the .deb not contain it.
>> That seems not permitted.

> of course not, any more than it is permitted to remove the license
> text or the copyright notice(*).

        Copyright law covers removal of copyright notices; there is no
 law that prevents removal or modification of sections the author
 decries invariant.

        However, not being able to remove things not prohibited by
 copyright law does seem an additional restriction to me.

> as has been said SEVERAL times before, the "patch" to an invariant
> section does NOT change or remove it.  it just adds another
> invariant section in response to it.  you may not claim credit for
> the work of others OR put your words in their mouths.  these are
> both reasonable and entirely unremarkable restrictions which do not
> in any way impinge on freedom.

        In which case, this is sufficiently different from the patch
 clause permitted in the DFSG for me to think it is not coverred. We
 are at liberty to extend the DFSG to  also cover the GFDL licensed
 documents with invariant clauses, but I think it does require us to
 modify or clarify the DFSG.

> (*) yes, i know the loony nutcases like to pretend that they're
> entirely different magically special cases which can be ignored for
> the purposes of the DFSG (mostly because even they realise they
> can't completely ignore their existence without losing what few
> shreds of credibility they have), but they're seriously
> reality-challenged.

        This paragraph does your argument no credit.


If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. Revolution
Books.  New York, New York.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: