Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:17:45PM +0200, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> If I include your personal position about, let's say, software freedom
> in my documentation under GFDL, I have to put it in an Invariant
> section, otherwise people would be able to change/twist your words and
> turn it into something completely different. That is the whole
> purpose of these sections, if they were not invariant, it wouldn't
> make sense at all.
That's not true. The whole point of Invariant Sections is 'I want my pet
rant to be part of every version of the document', nothing else.
If some free software you wrote is taken by someone else and turned into
an application to generate porn texts, would that make you the author of
a pornographic application? No. Why not? Because it is clear to everyone
involved that you did not write that version of the application.
If you take a text written by someone else, remove their name without
their permission and put your name under it, then that is called
'plagianism' which is illegal, with or without a Free license.
If you take a text written by someone else, twist and turn their words,
and bring it out as if it were their words, then that's called
'misrepresentation', and if you do it intentionally or refuse to
acknowledge your error afterwards, then that's illegal, with or without
a Free license.
It is not sensible to require that the some text cannot be modified
because you want to prevent something which is already illegal, with or
without your requirements, if those requirements take away other
freedoms which should be protected.
[...]
> As explained on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html, the
> Invariant sections serve a special purpose, which is the case of the
> GNU Manifesto. Many users, including myself, consider it a more
> important part than the GNU Emacs Manual itself. How removing the
> document, that inspired thousands to join the efforts, will make
> Debian more free, I cannot tell...
The point is not about removing the document because we want to.
The point is about being allowed the freedom to judge whether inclusion
of that specific part of the document makes sense in a certain specific
situation.
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
Reply to: