Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:16:55PM +0100, Frank Kuster wrote: >> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> As it has been discussed here, having the Manifesto attached as >> >> >> invariant is not only non-free, but also quite problematic when you >> >> >> are trying to produce a derivative work that is either a) a >> >> >> compilation of many documents >> >> > >> >> > With the currently existing documents this is not a problem. >> >> >> >> Why? >> > >> > Because even if you want to create a compilation of all GFDL works >> > ever released all over the world, the invariant sections that >> > currently exist are very few. >> >> So the license is "currently free in practice", because the option to >> thave invariant sections is only used by mainly one copyright owner who >> continues to add the same invariant sections over and over again? > > I am unable to see how you can make a conclusion like that provided > you cited what I actualy wrote. I will repeat the dialog: > > Margarita: the invariant sections can be a problem for compilation works > > Anton: 1. Currently there is no such a problem. > 2. Even if there is such a problem we already acknowledge as free > some licenses that prohibit compilation works > > Roger: Why? > > Anton explains why 1. and 2. are true. I am not goint to repeat the > explanations.
In the words I cite(d), you tried to explain why 1. is true, you don't talk about 2 at all in the parts cited. And the reasoning why "Currently there is no such problem" is based on the assumption that there are only a few invariant sections (except for history, of course), in other words because mostly only the FSF uses this option. And I say: If a license could be regarded as free only because its flaws are irrelevant currently - because its non-free options are rarely used -, then it is in fact non-fre now. >> Do you really think that such a license is in fact free? What would >> happen if more people used it with the invariant sections option - at >> which point would it get non-free? Don't you see that such a reasoning >> can never lead to a general guideline about freeness, and must therefore >> be rejected? > > It is no less free than the licenses that directly prohibit compilation > works. Personally, I would regard a license that prohibits compilation of a work under that license with other works under the same license, but from a different copyright holder, to be non-free. I am not aware of any works in Debian under such a license. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
