> > Every scientific book is made of references, bibliographies. You do
> > not remodify a book someone wrote - that's pointless.
>
> Which is it? Pointless or impossible? Let's try to maintain as much
> clarity as we can here.
>
> If your argument is that it's pointless my response is that that's not
> my call -- nor is it yours.
Pointless. I think it's pointless to provide a freedom which already
given and cannot be removed.
Worse, it may lead people to think that this freedom is not an obvious
one.
The fact is the software world have problem rarely found in others
areas -- because it's possible to distribute a binary form
only.
> [1] Think about the Brothers Grimm fairy tails, for example. If the
> only version we had today were the originals the world would be
> without a lot of kids books. If you're not familiar with them,
> the originals are much darker and more violent than what most
> modern parents would want their kids reading today.
The same goes from the Ancient tragedies. But it's already perfectly
possible to make a remake of any book, story or movie.
People rarely do so because, unless they have wonderful idea to
enhance the original text, there are big chance that their text will
be less interesting than the original one.
You can do the same with GFDL invariant text. You can make a remake of
the GNU Manifesto if you want to.
That's why I do not think that the invariant text is not really a
problem -- nothing by comparison to proprietary software.
And I use Debian, personally, because it matters to me to use a free
software distro. But I have no problem with invariant text -I've no
problem with the GPL or the DFSG, neither do I with Euripidies or
Giraudoux. I think there are others users that share my point of view
and would be disappointed if the GFDLed manuals was kicked out
Debian.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
