Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:28:18AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > Derived Works
> >
> > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
> > them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
> > original software.
> >
> > Notice that DFSG do not say "arbitrary modifications".
>
> The general interpretation we've taken of this is "must allow
> modifications in general, with restrictions allowable if they do not
> prevent reasonable use cases".
What is the meaning of "modifications in general"? I am just asking.
> "Invariant sections" prevent several reasonable use cases, which is why
> they're generally considered non-free.
The only example in this and the previous thread about such case is
the requirement to include the invariant sections and the text of GFDL
in man-pages generated from info-manuals. I explained why this is not
necessary.
> > If we want to decide whether some particular restrictions in the
> > license make the license non-free or not, we have to use external to
> > DFSG arguments. For example everybody is free to decide that the
> > invariant sections make the document non-free but this can not be a
> > consequence from DFSG.
>
> Well, it's true that it can't be a pure, logical consequence. There
> is *interpretation* (of the DFSG, of the Social Contract, of the
> license) involved. It is not a matter totally separate from the
> DFSG either, however.
Then this interpretation should be written and voted.
> > My personal addition to DFSG is this: the license must allow us to
> > improve the program and/or the documentation.
>
> Ah. You've omitted an absolutely vital freedom, which the FSF seems to have
> forgotten about when writing the GFDL: the freedom to adapt the work for
> another purpose.
I do not opose the freedom to adapt the work for another purpose. In
my opinion this freedom follows from the freedom to improve.
> Many of us care very strongly about this freedom. This freedom is
> one of the primary reasons why free software has been successful.
> Licenses which deny or severely restrict this freedom must IMNSHO be
> considered non-free.
I agree.
> The major limits it places on this freedom are the fundamental
> practical reason why the GFDL is a bad license.
Can you give me some hints about that?
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: