Re: Anton's amendment
At Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:35:47 +0100,
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> 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.
This is your interpretation. If you think that all present Invariant
sections in all released GFDL manuals are "pet rants", well. If you
think that a hypothetical rant that is put in an Invariant section
might make the document non-free, then I agree. A section about
"Child pornography" would make the document clearly illegal in many
countries. The same applies to software, if you include in your GPLd
program code that infringes an enforced patent, it would make it
non-free in some countries. Since it is impossible to predict the
danger in both cases, we cannot judge about the freedom in general
based on such assumptions.
> 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.
I agree, but this is not a proper example. Code and text cannot be
compared in this way because we don't speak with algorithms and
mathematical expressions. We're (still) humans, not robots. I think
this is the main point in this whole dispute -- the proponents of
Anthony Towns' proposal think that arbitrary modifications must be
allowed; the others apply some more (IMHO) reasonable judgement.
> 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.
How can this be achieved in practice, I mean, in the spirit [1] of
GFDL? If one includes a license text in a manual, it must be placed
in an Invriant section because no one is allowed to modify it.
Likewise, since it is unethical (even illegal) to modify somebody
else's personal opinion, how this can be avoided, if such an opinion
is included? The Invariant sections are a recursive necessity, this
option will never be removed from the GFDL, and it shouldn't.
Fortunately they're compatible with the DFSG (I know you disagree on
this).
> 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.
If we had the right to remove the GNU Manifesto, the Free Software
Movement would slowly lose its influence. People, especially young
people, tend to forget how this started and what ideals the movement
follows and why they are important.
I agree, that in certain specific situations it causes a lot of
inconvenience. However, I also think that as Free Software activists
that is a fair price that we should gladly pay.
[1] Yes, every legal text has a spirit, it allows judges/arbitrators
and parties involved to apply the so called "common sense" in case of
eventual disputes.
--
Yavor Doganov
Reply to: