Yorick Cool wrote: > Seeing as that is a void condition which is totally unenforceable[1], the > license is just the same as if the condition were inexistent, so yeah, > it's as good as free.
Ok, I think my point has been missed. After numerous examples (having to carry around page after page of obselete invariant sections, possibly not being able to distribute the document for devices not capable of displaying all the world's languages, etc.) having all been dismissed as (paraphrasing) "not a freeness issue, just a convenience issue", I am curious as to the people stating stuff like that define freedom, for in the several dictionaries I have checked, it is always defined along the lines of: "the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"[0] which, as I read it, includes convenience issues. So I asked an example of a "convenience issue" that I hoped would be so extreme that maybe, just maybe, we could agree that at some point, inconveniences become large enough to impact freeness. Or, as Gledd Maynard put it, "When people agree with the extreme case, and still disagree with the argument, they've established outer boundaries to narrow in on where they believe the line lies, and why; and it's a useful step in determining when that line is blurry (where 'bright line tests' don't exist)."[1] I realize, also, that my quick example has violations of various clauses of the DFSG. [0]: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=freedom [1]: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
