On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:34:19AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:47:54AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > > I am unconvinced that the DFSG means 'all modifications', I think that > > it really does mean all reasonable modifications. > > > > But the GFDL fails this, _entirely_. > > > > Even by the bounds of 'reasonable modifications' the GFDL with _any_ > > invariant sections is completely non-free, and how should be fairly > > obvious, but I'll give an extreme example: > > > > I'll take a large GNU manual, for reasons that could be anything from > > because I'm feeling strange today to because I'm fond of the build > > system they use for producing other formats of the document, I want to > > cut it down. > > > > So I chop it down until there is nothing _except_ the copyright > > statement and the invariant sections. > > > > I can no longer make any modifications, I can't change the copyright > > statement because, well, the law where I live forbids me from doing > > that. > > > > And I can't change _anything_ in the document itself, I can add to it, > > but I can't change it. > > so, your complaint is that if you delete the contents of the document, > then you can no longer change it? > > are you for real? do you seriously take this as credible proof that GFDL > is non-free? Are you just missing the point, or are you trying to miss the point? > > i see it as proof that it IS free - otherwise you wouldn't have to grasp > at straws to find such absurd "proofs". > > > did you notice that the reason you can only add to the document but > can't change it is because you deleted the contents? that there's > NOTHING there to change? how can you change something that doesn't exist > any more? you can't, regardless of license. Incorrect. I have removed everything, except for the overly large political statement. According to the license, I can not change it, and I can not remove it. At that point, it is the entirety of the document, it is more then one or two lines of text, it is _not_ a copyright statement or license which is covered by law instead of the license. Now, it is still under the GNU FDL, there is still content here, the content, which is now the _entirety_ of the document, is something that by the license I can not remove and can not change. > > > to reuse your line of argument with a different license: if i delete all > the lines of source code in a GPL program (leaving only the license and > copyright notice) then i can no longer change it. i can add to it, but i > can't change it. therefore the GPL is non-free. BZZZZT, sorry, in those cases you no longer have a document, in the case of the GFDL you may still have a great deal of document under a license which is, at that point, unquestionably non-free. Please, use some sense here, a large invariant section is not 'nothing', it actually does exist and it doesn't matter if you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and start singing. Zephaniah E. Hull. -- 1024D/E65A7801 Zephaniah E. Hull <warp@aehallh.com> 92ED 94E4 B1E6 3624 226D 5727 4453 008B E65A 7801 CCs of replies from mailing lists are requested. I am an "expert". Fear me, for I will wreak untold damage upon anything I can get my grubby hands on. -- Matt McLeod on ASR.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature