Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:48:24PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Subject to minor licence considerations, I'm free to modify any piece
> of software in Debian to satisfy my needs. However, this does not
> apply to many GFDL works. "Append only" modification isn't really
> freedom in my book; even if it is considered free, it's a long-term
> maintenance nightmare.
Debian project has not decided what "minor license considerations"
mean and I am pretty much sure that many developers will consider the
invariant secondary sections to be a "minor license consideration".
> >> As it has been discussed here, having the Manifesto attached as
> >> invariant is not only non-free, but also quite problematic when you
> >> are trying to produce a derivative work that is either a) a
> >> compilation of many documents
> > With the currently existing documents this is not a problem.
Because even if you want to create a compilation of all GFDL works
ever released all over the world, the invariant sections that
currently exist are very few.
> > Moreover, Debian already accepts some licenses that forbid
> > compilations.
> Would you care to provide examples? They would probably be non-free.
Debian acknowledges as free some licenses that require that the source
of all derived works is distributed in the form original_source+patch.
If you have two works covered by such license then there is no
permissible way to distribute the source of the combined work (unless
the combined work is merely aggregation of independent derivatives of
> >> b) a reduced version of the document (as in a cheat-sheet or
> >> similar)
> > This is allowed. When you distribute such documents you have to
> > accompany them with the invariant sections but thats all.
> "That's all"?! That's a serious restriction. Have you fully
> considered the implications?
I hope I have.
> >> c) printed on some non-paper medium (for example, a cup)
> > Also allowed. When you distribute such cup you can accompany it with
> > the invariant sections printed on paper medium and thats all.
> And you think that's acceptable!! Even when the invariant sections
> total fifty pages of irrelevant paper-wasting garbage?
If the invariant sections are extremely voluminous, the document would
be probably non-free (I mean non-free acording to FSF). But if the
invariant sections are not voluminous, then the invariant sections are
inconvenience at most.