On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 20:50, Mark Rafn wrote: > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Martin Wheeler wrote: > > And to those who would say: "There's no difference between software and > > documentation" I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about > > writing; specifically, _why_ writers write. > > It would be very instructive to hear from someone as knoweledgeable as > you. Tell us, why do writers write? Please limit your response to those > reasons that are different than why programmers program.
If you have an interest in a flame war please keep it in debian-legal. > If you have similar insight into readers, please tell us why they have > less interest in having freely-modifiable documentation than program users > have in freely-modifiable software. They do not. > I apologize for my snide tone - it rankles a bit to be told I know nothing > about the topic. However, I'm actually serious in my questions - I'd like > to understand why a software manual author needs to limit changes more > than a software author does, and why a software user would prefer free > software but not have the same preference for free documentation. The GFDL does not limit any changes to the body of the text. "If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant." "A 'Secondary Section' is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject." This seems to be the part of the you are concerned with. An Invariant section is just a Secondary Section which has been defined as such. However, a secondary section can have nothing to do with the subject matter. This means any text pertaining to the subject matter cannot fall under the protection of an invariant section. You are free to change any and all text in the body of the document. A secondary section if further restricted to any text dealing with the relationship of the author and publisher to the subject of the document. This means that any text about the author's opinions and comments cannot be invariant sections. The only text which can be an invariant section is the text pertaining to the author's relationship to the document. This means the author's copyright, his license, and any other historical licenses which apply to the document. The subject matter is a good comparison to the code. The code itself can be modified and changed in any way and is freely distributable. The GFDL also allows the text to be modified and changed in any way and to be freely distributable. The only part of the text which must remain intact is the copyright and license the text is distributed under. The DFSG states the licenses _must_ be distributed with the code. The Invariant section serves the same purpose. > I truly have yet to hear a reason to prevent free modification of a > copyrighted work that doesn't apply as well to softare as it does to > documentation. The reason for documentation guidelines because the DFSG and GPL only protects code. The code is not the same as published text and published text has a longer and more established legal history than code does. If a person would print out documentation and reprint it under their name the GPL and DFSG will not apply. You have converted the digital text to published text and published text follows very different rules. This is the main reason why Debian and the Free Software world needs a documentation license which the GFDL has met. The vast majority of the documentation contained within all the GNOME core packages is licensed under the GFDL. If Debian were to declare the GFDL a non-free license then almost all the GNOME packages would have to be put into non-free. The GNOME project has already debated the GFDL. Unfortunately the discussion occurred at GUADEC and there is not much in the lists. However, the only drawback we have seen is the GFDL's complexity tends to make people misinterpret it. I would hate for Debian to do this. Eric Baudais
