On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: [the topic is invariant sections] > i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL > proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not > merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only > freedom). 1) A while back, someone quoted Richard Stallman (not that it's happened just once). If that was in anything GFDLed with large invariant sections, as philosophical things tend to be, the quote wouldn't have been used, since it would make the message too long. Also, the kind of quotes relevant to this discussion would be in invariant sections, only making things more complicated. 2) If someone wanted to create a work discussing this GFDL-debate, and everyone's work was GFDLed with invariant sections, could they? Undoubtedly a lot of what is relevant would be in invariant sections. Would you want to try to write something under those conditions? Invariant stuff places an unworkable restriction beyond the author exercising due care to cite everything properly. Counterargument: "Oh, so you can still write about it without including them, so it's free". That sounds like saying you don't need be able to use code verbatim as long as you can reimplemented it. Including invariant stuff as-is wouldn't work, it would ruin _your_ work. Debian wouldn't accept either of those. > proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not > merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only > freedom). "Everything is free, if you give up enough freedoms". If everyone uses the GPL, we live in harmony. If everyone uses the GFDL with (different) invariant sections, we are not. We don't notice that since in general, there aren't invariant sections. rkd -- | Richard Darst - rkd@ - lefschetz: up 35 days, 6:15 | zgib.net | "Ye shall know the truth and -- the truth shall make you free" IANADD, my productivity is zero, etc.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature