Re: GFDL GR, vote please!
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:33:05PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <email@example.com> writes:
> > I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
> > modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
> > need, then the document is non-free. Otherwise, that is if the
> > license does not forbid any necessary modification, the document may
> > be free.
> This is no good. Where is it defined what is "necessary", and who
> deems what is "necessary"? What /I/ consider to be necessary may be
> considered "unnecessary" (and hence, not allowed) by the copyright
I don't think we disagree what "necessary" means.
> As an example, the FSF do not appear to consider the ability to remove
> invariant sections necessary in the current version of the GFDL for
> example, whereas I (and others) do. The reference cards were just an
> example of this need; aggregate works were another,
The reference cards do not require the removal of the invariant
sections. You can print the invariant sections on separate sheet(s)
> and there were several other real-world cases where a need was
I tried to list them in the following link and I don't think that a
need was demonstrated in any of the examples.
> Applying your test, in my eyes, still leaves the GFDL a non-free
I understand that this seams so, but no example was given to prove this.
> Could we draw this debate to some sort of conclusion? I continue to
> remain unconvinced by the majority of your arguments, many of which
> are still poorly explained.
If necessary I can try to explain better.