On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 12:34, Henning Makholm wrote: > Of course both of these limits are > judgement calls, and each particular Invariant-But-Removable > section will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. > [Hmmm.. so I think at least, but I'm not sure that this is > a clear d-l consensus. -HM]
I don't think invariant-but-removable sections are OK; we'd certainly never accept things like that anywhere else, and I don't think that compromise would buy anyone much: If I am the author of a work, why would I want it? The only reason I'd have to make something invariant would be something like the manifesto, which contains my beliefs, arguments, etc. But would it not be a better solution to require that if its changed, it is clearly changed to show may not represent my views anymore? If I am the author, I could _possibly_ use one for an endorsement of the work, by e.g., making a statement in a removable invariant section that I endorse the work with a given MD5sum (calculated assuming the listed md5sum is all 0's, of course), but upon further reflection I don't need an invariant section for that: I could use gpg, or I could just include that statement anywhere in the document. Changing it to state I endorse a document I do not is already illegal. I don't need license conditions to make it so. If I am a distributor, sure, I can rip them all out, but not having them in the first place is better for me. I can see the motivation for non-removable invariant sections; they can be used for things like credits, dedications, odes to my pet anteater, etc. They just aren't free.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
