Re: Anton's amendment
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:22:41 +1100, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:57:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Copyright law covers removal of copyright notices; there is no law
>> that prevents removal or modification of sections the author
>> decries invariant.
> there's no law that specifically states you can't remove a credit or
> copyright notice, either - it's just convention AND the fact that
> you don't have any right to edit & redistribute except that which is
> granted by the license.
> so, invariant sections have as much "force of law" as credit or
> copyright notices.
>> In which case, this is sufficiently different from the patch clause
>> permitted in the DFSG for me to think it is not coverred. We are at
>> liberty to extend the DFSG to also cover the GFDL licensed
>> documents with invariant clauses, but I think it does require us to
>> modify or clarify the DFSG.
> no, it's not sufficiently different.
I guess we differ.
> with software, it is necessary to actually change or remove the code
> you want to patch because code is functional - if you don't change
> it, the patch wont work.
> documentation, however, is non-functional. you can amend it by
> simply adding stuff to it.
We make no distinction between how software is classified
(programs or documentation), and that has been ratified by two
votes.
> and, in any case, we're only talking about SECONDARY sections here,
> not about the primary topic(s) of the work - ancillary comments,
> copyright and credit notices, political rants, and so on. whether
> you agree with what the invariant section is saying or not, you
> don't have the right to put other words in the author's mouths. if
> you disagree with them and feel strongly enough about it, then leave
> their words alone and add your own.
There is no distinction between secondary sections and primary
sections in the DFSG.
>> > (*) yes, i know the loony nutcases like to pretend that they're
>> > entirely different magically special cases which can be ignored
>> > for the purposes of the DFSG (mostly because even they realise
>> > they can't completely ignore their existence without losing what
>> > few shreds of credibility they have), but they're seriously
>> > reality-challenged.
>>
>> This paragraph does your argument no credit.
> why? because i tell it like it is? and don't let unreasonable
> zealots hide behind a flimsy facade of being rational human beings?
Name calling generally denotes a weak argument.
> craig
> ps: do i think GFDL Invariant Sections are a good thing? no, i
> don't. it's just that i don't think they're a particularly bad
> thing. certainly not bad enough to make GFDL non-free, or even bad
> enough to get upset about. very mildly irked, perhaps...but no more.
All right. But others have seen it as more of a burden.
manoj
--
Government lies, and newspapers lie, but in a democracy they are
different lies.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: