On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:03:49PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 08:05:57PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:54:38AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > "wannabe-Holier-Than-Stallman zealots" is not a rebuttal, it's merely a
> > > > succinct description of the anti-GFDL crowd.
> > >
> > > Not agreeing with you does not necessarily make people zealots.
> >
> > i never said it did.
> >
> > being insanely pedantic & obsessive about licensing trivialities does,
> > however, make one a zealot.
>
> Indeed. But not everyone agrees with your opinion that invariant sections
> are trivialities.
well, that just makes them wrong. and if they're obsessive about it, zealots.
> > > Because that's the only kind of "modification by patch" that the GFDL
> > > allows for.
> >
> > "patch" is not restricted to the controlling input to patch(1) - or
> > to any particular program or method.
>
> Nor did I say so, I was using a simple comparision. But you artfully
> dodged the real question, so I'll repeat it in rephrased form, without
> mentioning of the word patch:
i thought it was a stupid question that missed the point entirely.
but, since you insist on having your stupid question answered:
> "Would you accept a license that only allowed fixing typos (for instance)
> in a program by *also* outputting the fixed line of text?"
for software, no.
for the primary content of a document, no.
> Because this is *exactly* the situation you get with invariant sections.
> Sure, you can add another invariant section that fixes all the "bugs" in
> the original version, but that still leaves the buggy version in the
> document.
for invariant sections (as defined in the GFDL) in a document, that's good
enough.
for a document, one person's "bugfix" is another person's "censorship".
the point of invariant sections is that nobody can come along later and censor
the original author's words or put words in their mouths. whether you agree
with them or not, you do not have the right to change or delete what they
said, you only have the right to comment upon it.
this is perfectly OK for documentation because only secondary sections may be
invariant. the primary content (i.e. the subject matter) can never be
invariant and may be changed at will, e.g. to reflect changes in the
associated software. THIS is the important freedom for documentation.
the following extract from the GFDL is why Invariant Sections are a licensing
triviality:
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter
section of the Document that deals exclusively with the
relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the
Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains
nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject.
(For example, if the Document is in part a textbook of
mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.)
The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with
the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial,
philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.
The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose
titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in
the notice that says that the Document is released under this
License.
"a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals
*exclusively* with the *relationship* of the publishers or authors of the
Document to the Document's overall subject" (emphasis mine) -- it does not
matter in the slightest if these things can not be changed by anyone but the
original authors. they are not in the least bit important for the task of
accurately documenting software.
the purpose of an Invariant section is to ensure that the author is correctly
attributed in the manner that they choose, and that *their work* is presented
in the philosophical context that they choose.
e.g. it is to stop people from changing text like "Professor Fred Bloggs has
worked in the field of blahblahblah for 50 years" to "Fred Bloggs is a
fuckwit", and to stop people from deleting a rant on the ethical superiority
of free software and replacing it with a diatribe. or vice-versa.
these are perfectly legitimate things for an author to want to remain
invariant. if someone disagrees with them then they can add a comment
detailing their disagreement, but they do not have the right to censor the
author's words or to change what they said.
if you don't like their political or ethical stance and want to delete it
entirely (or worse, change it), then tough luck - write your OWN damn document
and then you can do whatever you want with it.
these are fundamental ethical principles - censorship is evil, and you do not
put words in people's mouths. these thing are just plain wrong, in any
context.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
