Re: Anton's amendment
Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:25:55PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>> Removing lengthy political rants is clearly a real need if it comes to
>> reducing space.
>
> We have already looked at many examples of this sort but they all fall
> in one of the following three categories:
>
> 1. GFDL prohibits some particular use of the document but some
> other free license also prohibits this use.
Please get your words straight. Any license that prohibits a particular
use fails DFSG 6. You are probably talking about "modifications to suit
the needs of some particular use case" or the like.
Maybe this has been discussed somewhere in the thread, but since you are
the person who wants to convince the secretary, you should probably
collect this together.
> 2. GFDL adds some inconvenience for some particular use of the
> document, but it doesn't prohibit this use.
... but it effectively makes this use technically impossible. Actually
the case of distribution by SMS that somebody else brought up seems
quite a good example to me: It's realistic, for example for the manual
of a bootloader like grub (which happens to be a GNU project with a
non-GFDLed manual) when your box doesn't boot and you don't have other
network access; and transmitting 20 pages of "junk" is clearly not an
option here.
> 3. The invariant sections of some hypothetical document are so
> lengthy that they are obstructing the users to really excercise
> the rights they have acorging to GFDL. Such a document would be
> non-free.
No, you miss the point. the invariant sections of existing documents
like the Emacs manual *are* so lenghty. So lenghty that combining it
with other GFDL'ed documents with other, equally lengthy invariant
sections would create a beast instead of a document.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Reply to: