Re: Anton's amendment
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 20:12 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> If the invariant sections are unreasonably long then I'd agree the
> document is non-free. However some developers object even short
> invariant sections.
It has nothing to do with the size of the invariant section (and indeed,
GFDL doesn't impose a size limit on Invariant Sections). It's just the
fact of being invariant. The use cases I gave are just examples, I could
think in other examples to show you the fact that they being invariant
prevents it from fitting in a particular need, but that's not what's
going to make us move forward...
The fact is that it doesn't allows me to modify it to fit my needs (be
it whatever needs), plain that. You do have the right of thinking this
restriction is not important, this is your proposal, actually. But this
*does modify* DFSG3.
This was what I tried to show you, not the opposite. My interpretation
of DFSG3 is guided by freedom 1, which says "adapt it to your needs".
Invariant sections are a restriction not covered by it.
> > 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.
> FSF would not accept this. The purpose of the secondary sections is
> to express "the relationship of publishers or authors of the Document
> to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters)... The
> relationship could be matter of historical connection with the subject
> or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical,
> ethical or political position regarding them".
How bad... To me, it's like using one thing as media to unrelated stuff,
and as most people would remove the unrelated stuff, they force it to be
there anyway.
daniel
Reply to: