Re: Anton's amendment

[Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>]

Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> wrote:

>> >> 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.
>> 
>> Why?
>
> 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.

So the license is "currently free in practice", because the option to
thave invariant sections is only used by mainly one copyright owner who
continues to add the same invariant sections over and over again?

Do you really think that such a license is in fact free?  What would
happen if more people used it with the invariant sections option - at
which point would it get non-free?  Don't you see that such a reasoning
can never lead to a general guideline about freeness, and must therefore
be rejected?

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)