On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 05:55:54PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: <snips personal insults instead of adding to them> > 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). Alright, I'm going to give another example here, hopefully this one will get through to you. Now, remember, we have _already had_ the GR that states that as far as the DFSG goes we don't give a damn if it's documentation or software. So, I write a program, nice, big, with a license that says that you can do anything you want with it as long as you keep the copyright statements attached and don't make any changes at all to main.c, none, not for bug fixing, not for feature changes, none at all. Oh, and you are not allowed to delete it or keep it from being linked in either. Would you consider this license free? If so, you're an idiot because it's not even close. And we have ALREADY decided that we don't give a damn if it's software or documentation, the fact that it's a 'secondary' section makes not one damn bit of difference, it's still non-free. > > 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. I'm pretty sure that if you asked a lawyer what would happen were you to make drastic changes to the license file on a project that wasn't yours and removed the copyright notices that he'd tell you that it was likely to get you in a whole lot of trouble when they sue you for doing so. > > 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. What's left is main.c, an invariant section, by definition unchangeable. Unchangeable stuff is alright to have in main, right? > > 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. The program is still, in essence, no different to what it was before you deleted all the stuff you were allowed to delete. You can still add stuff back to it as you please. And you've even exercised your freedom in deleting the rest of it. > > 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. The license has broken, you no longer have a license that allows you to do _ANYTHING_. > > 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. The license has broken, and strangely, the program or document, doesn't matter which, _IS STILL THERE_, it does not disappear in a magic puff of smoke. No license equals no permission to do anything AT ALL as far as distributing it. > > 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. You have an empty program. Oh, sure, there's that main.c, which you're not allowed to touch, but the rest of it is gone so it doesn't matter, really! Look behind you, a plane! Now, we were not talking about there being some UTTERLY NON-FREE COMPONENT of the program that you're not allowed to remove, not at all. Move along, nothing to see here. > > 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. If this is a ridiculously absurd contrived scenario, I would be happy to write such a program under such a license to put in main. I'm _quite_ sure that other people would be happy to get their non-free software in under the same conditions. Remember, we already voted that it DOES NOT MATTER if we are talking about software or documentation. So, are both licenses free? 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. "And now, little kittens, we're going to run across red-hot motherboards, with our bare feet." -- Buzh.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature