Re: GFDL GR, vote please!

[Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg>]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:33:05PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> 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
> holders.

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)
of paper.

> and there were several other real-world cases where a need was
> demonstrated.

I tried to list them in the following link and I don't think that a
need was demonstrated in any of the examples.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00226.html

> Applying your test, in my eyes, still leaves the GFDL a non-free
> licence.

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.

Anton Zinoviev