Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL
> [...]
>
> This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does
> not hold.
no, it holds perfectly well. the trouble is that nutcases aren't in the
least bit swayed by reason or logic - they have their own bizarre and
psychotic mis-interpretation of reality and nothing, NOTHING, is ever
going to sway them from it.
> > You must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy ALONG
> > with each Opaque copy, or state IN OR WITH each Opaque copy a
> > computer-network location from which the general network-using
> > public has access to download using public-standard network
> > protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of
> > added material.
> >
> > Consequently the license requires distribution of the transparent form
> > ALONG with each opaque copy but not IN OR WITH each opaque copy. It
> > is a fact confirmed by Richard Stallman, author of GFDL, and testified
> > by the common practice, that as long as you make the source and
> > binaries available so that the users can see what's available and take
> > what they want, you have done what is required of you. It is up to
> > the user whether to download the transparent form.
>
> That would indeed seem to be the intent of that section, but it is not
> what is written.
>
> It says that you *must* either include a Transparent copy along with
> each opaque copy (thus, if you print a book, you must include a CD-ROM),
> or maintain a website (or something similar) for no less than one year
> after distributing the opaque copy. As written, it is not enough to
> point the recipient to an available copy that they can take if they want
> to; you must either include it, or maintain a website.
bullshit! it says nothing of the kind.
as usual, you extremist nutcases have no hesitation about lying if it will
further your moronic agenda.
it says that, along with an opaque copy, you must include EITHER a
transparent copy or state the publicly accessible computer network
location where the user can obtain a transparent copy. it says NOTHING
AT ALL that could even remotely be interpreted as saying you must
operate or maintain that site yourself. all it says is that you have to
refer users to it.
and even if it did - so what? it's hardly an onerous or unreasonable
clause, nor does it in any way restrict freedom.
> Not everyone has the ability to do that. If I print out a copy of
> a manual that I wish to give to a friend, then I do not want to be
> forced to write him a CD-ROM, too; and I'm not sure that I want to
> maintain a copy on my webspace, either (in my particular case that
> shouldn't be a problem, but I can imagine that not everyone has
> multiple gigabytes of diskspace on their webserver)
i'll say it again, and maybe it will sink in (a probably forlon hope):
1. you don't have to, you just need to give a URL.
2. even if you did, it doesn't impinge on freedom
> [...]
> > (4) Digital Rights Management
> [...]
> > In fact, the license says only this:
> >
> > You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> > reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute
> >
> > This clause disallows the distribution or storage of copies on
> > DRM-protected media only if a result of that action will be that the
> > reading or further copying of the copies is obstructed or controlled.
> > It is not supposed to refer the use of encryption or file access
> > control on your own copy.
>
> No; however, as written it can be interpreted as such.
only by a nutcase with an agenda. normal people (including lawyers and
judges) wouldn't have such an insane and insupportable interpretation.
that's because normal people rely on facts. and evidence. they don't
just make up whatever crap they need to suit their argument.
> We all agree that this is a bug in the license, but agreeing on that
> does not mean that there is no problem.
not everyone agrees with your loony misinterpretation.
at worst it's a minor bug - it could use some clarification (mostly to
shut up lunatics with bizarro-world interpretations), but it's nowhere
near a show-stopper bug.
[ remainder of your tripe deleted ]
i've had enough. i couldn't be bothered going through the rest of
your post and pointing out the inevitable flaws and idiocies. there's
no point, anyway - like all extremist nutcases you are fixed in your
opinion and no amount of logic or even the real world smacking you in
the face with harsh reality will ever change it. i really don't know why
i even bothered responding this time. i've wasted more than enough of my
time on others like you in the past with nothing to show for it but an
increasing disillusionment and disgust with the debian organisation and
the extremist vermin who infest it. it's why i do little or nothing for
debian any more, and am unlikely to do so unless and until debian gets
some sanity back.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: