Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:05:48PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: >> But the issue here is not copying or modifying an existing card, but >> deriving a reference card from the Emacs manual. > > If the documentation was licensed under the BSD license, wouldn't you > still have to include the full license text on the card? If the GPL, > a change list as well?
No. I could include them on another piece of paper with the card. Those licenses merely require text be included *with* the document. The GFDL mandates that invariant sections be part of the document, which is much worse. For example, if I want to create some art with Richard Stallman's photograph over a backdrop of text from the emacs manual, I have to include the GNU manifesto as *part of the picture*. It's not enough to include it alongside the picture, it has to be part of the same document. In contrast, the free GPL or free BSD license lets me just include a copyright statement for the text, and a copy of the license, with the picture. > If these are a problem as well, the argument against the GFDL here is > less interesting; and if they're not, this GFDL argument probably isn't, > either. > > There seem to be other, more convincing arguments against invariant > sections. For example, if I want to perform a dramatic reading of a page from the Emacs Manual in some horribly expensive format, I have to read a bunch of invariant sections with it. I agree that there are more convincing philosophical arguments to avoid invariant sections, and to consider invariant sections non-free. But this is an example of a category of practical problems introduced by invariant sections, something which can be presented to those who say this is merely a philosophical issue. -Brian
