Anton Zinoviev <email@example.com> writes: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:33:05PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: >> Anton Zinoviev <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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. Please answer the question I asked: Where is it defined what is "necessary", and who deems what is "necessary"? >> 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. This is not a workable solution. I consider this a case where removal is necessary. When does this become so impractical as to be non-free? When there are 5 pages of invariant sections? 50? 500? [Don't bother answering this one; the debate has repeated the same arguments rather too many times already.] > If necessary I can try to explain better. You have had ample opportunity to explain properly in the deluge of posts you have sent over the last few weeks. -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
Description: PGP signature