"Other users consider proprietary manuals acceptable for the same reason
so many people consider proprietary software acceptable: they judge in
purely practical terms, not using freedom as a criterion. These people
are entitled to their opinions, but since those opinions spring from
values which do not include freedom, they are no guide for those of us
who do value freedom.
>From the above, I won't judge Invariant Sections on practical terms, but
using freedom as a criterion.
We agree on that point.
They are the very opposite of free. So
I reject them (_both_ in terms of our principles, and in terms of
multiple practical inconveniences).
The invariant sections don't restrict your freedom to use the
technical material, verbatim or modified. They may cause practical
inconvenience for some kinds of uses, but no more than that. The
issue is basically the same as the issue of the preamble of the GPL.
Incompatibility of licenses does cause real obstacles to certain uses,
and it might be worth changing the GFDL to solve that problem, if it
can be done without big drawbacks. I'm going to think about this
question. But the same issue arises for free documentation licenses
that don't have invariant sections, and Debian is not considering
rejecting them. It's not valid to use this argument against the GFDL
alone.
Perhaps then you will understand us better and decide whether you wish
for us to distribute free FSF software manuals.
I would like Debian to distribute free GNU manuals, but I recognize
that Debian can decide either to use them or not.
