Re: Anton's amendment
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:53 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> Unfortunately DFSG are not unambiguous and obviously the people
> understand them in various ways.
Well, the text in DFSG3 may be not well tight. But I think we should
look at its direct reference, which can be said as the most sane
interpretation. It's clear to me that there is a reference to freedom
1[1], and then, it can guide the interpretation of DFSG3.
Freedom 1 clearly says:
"The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs".
So, In some cases removing the invariant sections is needed to adapt it
to whoever needs (be it a library that wants to reduce paper cost, be it
a embedded apps developer that wants to reduce disk usage, or be it a
debian packager who wants to include part of some GFDL doc in a man
page).
So, IMHO, it's quite unreasonable to say that invariant sections fit in
DFSG3. And this way, Anton's proposal do require a change in DFSG3,
which in this proposal means an exception to GFDL.
> If we decide that the invariant
> sections are free, this will require some of us to change their
> interpretations of DFSG.
> Because of this ambiguity I realy belive that we need to modify DFSG
> in some future GR.
Sorry, but I don't think that's possible. Your proposal means adding a
"except for GFDL invariant sections" in DFSG3. Even if it automatically
doesn't change that text, it does change it's use, which IMHO, is the
same thing.
daniel
P.S.: One thing I don't know if has been already suggested to FSF is to
require changing the work's name before removing the invariant sections,
as it's clear to me that the invariant sections exists to preserve the
author's integrity (in the sense of DFSG4), this way, it would fit in
the exception already stated there.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Reply to: