Re: Anton's amendment
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 09:14:12PM -0600, Richard Darst wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> [the topic is invariant sections]
>
> > 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).
>
> 1)
>
> A while back, someone quoted Richard Stallman (not that it's happened
> just once). If that was in anything GFDLed with large invariant
> sections, as philosophical things tend to be, the quote wouldn't have
> been used, since it would make the message too long. Also, the kind
> of quotes relevant to this discussion would be in invariant sections,
> only making things more complicated.
bullshit. fair use allows quoting for purposes of review or comment.
a significantly larger work would simply have to include the invariant
section(s). that might be inconvenient, but freedom does not require
convenience.
> 2)
>
> If someone wanted to create a work discussing this GFDL-debate, and
> everyone's work was GFDLed with invariant sections, could they?
> Undoubtedly a lot of what is relevant would be in invariant sections.
> Would you want to try to write something under those conditions?
> Invariant stuff places an unworkable restriction beyond the author
> exercising due care to cite everything properly.
yes, of course they could. they'd just have to include all of the
invariant sections.
that might be a complete pain in the arse, but that's a convenience
issue, not a freedom issue.
> > proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not
> > merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only
> > freedom).
>
> "Everything is free, if you give up enough freedoms".
convenience is not required by freedom. in fact, freedom is often
inconvenient.
score so far: 1 bullshit argument, 2 confusings of convenience for freedom.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: