Re: Anton's amendment
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:16:55PM +0100, Frank Kuster wrote:
> 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?
I am unable to see how you can make a conclusion like that provided
you cited what I actualy wrote. I will repeat the dialog:
Margarita: the invariant sections can be a problem for compilation works
Anton: 1. Currently there is no such a problem.
2. Even if there is such a problem we already acknowledge as free
some licenses that prohibit compilation works
Roger: Why?
Anton explains why 1. and 2. are true. I am not goint to repeat the
explanations.
> 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?
It is no less free than the licenses that directly prohibit compilation
works.
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: