Re: Anton's amendment
Yavor Doganov <yavor@doganov.org> writes:
> | Everything, which is reasonable to be modified, must be modifiable
> Things that are unreasonable to be modified for me are license texts
> and personal opinions (or rants), which can only be copied verbatim.
You are, once more, ignoring that invariant sections prohibit not only
modification, but also removal. How is it unreasonable to remove a
personal statement?
Moreover, the modification of "personal statements" has a long and
venerable history. One of the most stellar examples is the
modification of John Locke's "life, liberty, and property" into Thomas
Jefferson's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Are you
saying that it was unreasonable of Jefferson to make that
modification?
What about the modification when, for example, Ovid's "Metamophoses"
is translated into English? Unmodifiable sections cannot be
translated either (unless you keep the entire original too).
> There is contradiction if Anthony's (or Adeodato's) proposal passes.
> Since Debian is tolerating and distributing non-free software, many
> people will ask themselves how the Debian Project is questioning the
> freeness of the GFDL, a license acknowledged as free in the community.
> It is not a contradiction, it's a hypocrisy.
We do not claim that non-free software is evil, only that it is not
part of the Debian distribution itself. We do not claim that the GFDL
is evil, only that it does not satisfy the DFSG. I'm quite certain
that GFDL'd manuals would of course be perfectly acceptible for the
Debian non-free archive.
Thomas
Reply to: