Re: Anton's amendment
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 05:55:54PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:34:19AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > 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'm trying to make you see the point. you seem highly resistant to clue
installation.
> > 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.
no, absolutely correct. there's nothing there to change BECAUSE you
deleted everything that could be changed. you can still add whatever you
like AND you still have the same freedoms that you had before you deleted
the content.
> 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.
Q. doctor, it hurts when i bash my head with a hammer.
A. don't do that, then.
in other words, if you do stupid things, you've got to expect stupid
results.
and whatever you think your point is, it's still an extreme & absurd
scenario - if that's all you can come up with to "prove" that GFDL is
non-free, if you have to come up with some contrived and ridiculous
scenario, then you can't honestly say that it is non-free.
i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL
proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not
merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only
freedom).
> 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.
neither of these things are actually covered by law - there is no
specific law that states "you may not delete or alter copyright notices
or licenses". these things are just implicit convention.
> 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.
yes, what's left are the invariant sections. by definition,
unchangeable. you have such mastery of the obvious.
unfortunately, you're sadly lacking in understanding. the document is,
in essence, no different to what it was before you deleted all the
content. you are still free to add whatever you like to the content, and
to change that as you please. you have, in fact, exercised your freedom
already BY deleting the original content.
more importantly, you are making the mistake of assuming that because
you deleted the contents, the *real* primary topic of the document,
that the secondary sections are automatically promoted to the status of
primary topic. that is a false assumption. by definition, an invariant
section can only be a secondary section, AND a secondary section CAN NOT
BE the primary topic of a document. so that means either:
1. (in the unlikely case that your auto-promotion theory is true) since
they're not secondary sections, they can't be invariant: no invariant
sections, no problem.
2. (otherwise) since there's no primary topic to hang them on to, the
invariant sections go too, so you have no document at all: no document,
no license, no problem.
in either case, the outcome is ridiculous because the scenario
conditions are ridiculous. what you actually have is an empty document.
i.e. nothing. not worth worrying about. it doesn't matter in the
slightest.
> > 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.
you have exactly as much document with GPL (or other license) as with
the GFDL - you have the invariant sections (copyright notice(s), license
text, etc). it may not DO anything, but that's besides the point - if
you do something stupid, you've got to expect stupid results.
and just as with the GFDL you still have the same freedoms you had
before - you can add code, change it, or delete it.
> 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.
some people prefer not to waste time worrying about ridiculously absurd
contrived scenarios. there are lots of real things worth worrying about
in this world. your scenario is not one of them.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: