Re: Anton's amendment
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:40:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:40:28 +0000, Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> said:
>> We already agree to distribute text we can't modify - that is, the
>> licenses and attributions and the advertising clauses and so forth.
>
> Err. We distribute some works, with licenses attached to them
> that allow us certain rights on the work in question. We are not legally
> allowed to modify the license, so it is a good thing it is not part of
> the Work. Advertising clauses are not about the work itself -- they are
> about ancillary activities, so are a different issue.
The Invariant sections *cannot* be about the work itself by definition,
i.e. they must not contain technical stuff that is relevant to the
manual. Think of them as opinions of the authors that they consider
important to advertise, and which can be countered/improved by adding
an additional section. Similarly to the advertising clauses they
cannot be removed. Certainly it is up to the authors' conscience to
include such sections as well as how sound they may be. Abnormal use
of this option of the GFDL may lead to a manual to become non-free,
but it is not a direct consequence from the DFSG.
On the other hand, I guess everybody agrees that putting the text of
the GPL in such a section is a necessary thing.
> You are also free to explicitly state that the GFDL
> restrictions are also to be considered free. Hence, the 3:1 requirement,
> to allow that statement to be inserted into the DFSG.
Perhaps you'll never change your position because this is your reading
of the DFSG. But for the sake of democracy you have to assume that
people think different, so it is not fair to impose your view.
--
Yavor Doganov
Reply to: