Joerg Wendland said: > The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having > invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a > conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do > not want anybody to change that section, write anything into it that I > do not agree with. The readers of that modified version will think it > is my opinion they are reading thouhg it is not and may be even > contrary to mine. What does that mean? When I am free to say what I > want (freedom of speech, one of our highest goals!) I do want to keep > to my words and do not want anybody to put words in my mouth I would > never say.
The trouble with that example is that the invariant section does _not_ protect your opinion. First, the conclusion of a report can not possibly be considered a "secondary" section of a GFDL'd report, since the conclusion is relevant to the primary subject material. Second, if you did make the conclusion an invariant section, someone could rewrite the non-invariant parts, using faulty data, to make the opposite conclusion "obvious". They would be forced (by the GFDL) to keep your (obviously-wrong, based on the text they distribute) conclusion, with your name attached. Third, variant sections (text that others can change) do not limit your right to free speech. You can continue to distribute the work that accurately describes your opinion. And you can tell people that the modified work that's being distributed by EvilCo does not represent your opinion. A copyright license is not the place to enforce anti-defamation, libel, and slander laws. Someone can not "put words in your mouth". You said: > I think the sky is green, and pigs can fly. See? You should have licensed your email message so that no one could modify your comments to "put words in your mouth". --Joe
