Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:50:46AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > It is not inconvenient to distribute auctex_11.html together
> > > > with the invariant sections.
> > >
> > > Of course it is - imagine that my documentation contains parts
> > > from 10 documents, all under GFDL, all using lots of invariant
> > > sections - that would be more than inconvenient.
> >
> > the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of
> > convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free.
>
> True; however, Frank said "it would be more than inconvenient", which
> does not say he thinks that the main problem is lack of convenience
> here.
i guess english is not your native language. "more than inconvenient" is
a colloquialism for "extremely bloody inconvenient" or worse. i.e. "more
than" is another way of saying "very".
it doesnt imply that there's a more serious problem beyond the
inconvenience, just that the inconvenience is not at all trivial and
very annoying.
if that's not what frank meant (and it looks exactly like he did from
the context) then he'll have to back up his statement with reasoning and
evidence before i'll take it seriously. bald assertions without anything
to back them up arent worth very much.
> > case in point - it is inconvenient (for both the distributor and the
> > user) to distribute modified software in the form of original work +
> > patch file. very inconvenient. in fact, a complete PITA, especially
> > for the user. yet that is explicitly defined as being free in the
> > DFSG.
> >
> > feel free to ignore this fact - it's based in reality and doesn't
> > conform to your loony zealot prejudices.
>
> No, I won't, because it's actually a very good argument as to why
> invariant sections could be seen as less of a problem: if we allow
if this isnt just your version of sophistry then maybe you arent as
close-minded as the rest. perhaps there's still hope for you.
> unmodifiable-but-patcheable programs, it is not unreasonable to say
> that we should allow documents that are (in part) unmodifiable, but
> to whose contents you can add protest or whatnot. If you would've
> remained calm and have given reasonable arguments such as this one,
> rather than throwing mud around as you seem to like to do, maybe we
> could've had a conversation.
i've made the same argument several times since this whole stupid "GFDL
is evil!" argument started however long ago.
before i figured out that they were religious zealots and thus immune
to reason, i wasted a lot of time trying to use reason against the
inherently unreasonable - doomed to failure...with the zealots, it's ALL
about faith and dogma, received "wisdom", not about reasoning. or logic.
or evidence.
> The only problem I see with this argument is the fact that the GFDL
> defines an invariant section as a "secondary section", which it in
> turn defines as "a named appendix that or a front-matter section of
> the Document (...) contains nothing that could fall directly within
> [the document's] overall subject". Hence, if you keep adding invariant
> sections, eventually any reasonable definition of "the document's
> overall subject" would be whatever all those invariant sections talk
> about.
>
> How do you think this should be looked at?
by not leaping to such absurd conclusions.
what makes you think that adding an invariant section (by definition
"secondary" and not the primary topic matter) can in any way change the
primary topic of a document? it just doesnt make any sense. is it just
that one of the zealot drone units told you? well, that's "received
wisdom" for you. dogma has to be resisted with reason - in your own mind,
at least. you'll never convince a true zealot but at least you can see
the holes in their faith for yourself...and point them out to others to help
them resist being brainwashed by it.
a book about emacs with one or two invariant sections is a book about
emacs. the same book (or a different book, doesnt matter) with 10 or 100
or 1000 invariant sections is STILL a book about emacs.
invariant sections are commentary or copyright/credit notices or opinion
or rants or other stuff irrelevant (or, at best, only tangentially
relevant) to the topic of the document. they are not and never can be
the primary topic of a GFDL document.
absurdity like that is a common pattern with the zealots' dogma. they'll
make some absurd interpretation of or conclusion about something, based
on ridiculous conjecture, and then BECAUSE THEY THINK IT SUPPORTS THEIR
VISION, they treat it as The Truth (with capital "T"s), rather than
acknowledge it for the ridiculous opinion that it really is. they will
then proceed to defend their "Truth" against all infidels (i.e. those
daring to use reason).
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: