Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG

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

On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:50:46AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 03:41:03PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:54:40AM +0100, Frank Kuster wrote:
> > > Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> 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.

Since obviously we all use the words "convenient/inconvenient" in many
different ways, let me make more clear how the GNU project and I
understand which inconvenience is allowable and which is not.

In general, we say that some software license is free if it doesn't
obstruct the users to exercise their basic four freedoms and in
particular the freedoms to adapt the work to your needs and release
improved versions to the community.

Speaking more specificly, if the AUCTeX's manual was under GFDL, then
Frank would not be allowed to distribute auctex_11.html alone -- GFDL
would require him to ship this file as a component of a valid document
containing the invariant sections also.  However it is not impossible
task to ship auctex_11.html together with the invariant sections and
as a matter of fact it is a relatively easy task.  Would that be
inconvenient to Frank? -- Yes.  Does this inconvenience obstruct the
software freedoms somehow? -- Certainly not, the users get the file
Frank wants to give them.

Sometimes when applied to some license, the four basic software
freedoms can look too abstract.  Fortunately we have our Debian free
software guidelines -- they are more concrete and and easier to apply
to the particular rules of the license.  DFSG are guidelines showing
us which licenses obstruct the users freedoms and which do not.
Unfortunately, if we forget the purpose and the source of DFSG it is
easy to misinterpret them.  For example it is easy to say that DFSG3
protects the freedom "to modify the software as you see fit".  However
DFSG3 doesn't say "as you see fit".  The purpose of DFSG3 is to ensure
that we are allowed to distribute improve versions of the software and
to adapt the software to particular needs.

> 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.

Here are some questions to help to determine what the overall subject
of the document is:

  1. Why the people read the document?
  2. How the people will remember the document?
  3. What informal name the people will give to the document?  (In
     most cases this will be the same as the real name of the
     document)
  4. If the document is printed as a book/pamphlet, how it is going to
     be classified in the public libraries?

Regardless of how many the secondary sections are and how short the
technical contents is, in many cases the overall subject of the
document can still be the technical contents and not the secondary
sections.

Anton Zinoviev