Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:33:05PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: >> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some >> > modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some >> > need, then the document is non-free. Otherwise, that is if the >> > license does not forbid any necessary modification, the document may >> > be free. >> >> This is no good. Where is it defined what is "necessary", and who >> deems what is "necessary"? What /I/ consider to be necessary may be >> considered "unnecessary" (and hence, not allowed) by the copyright >> holders. > > I don't think we disagree what "necessary" means.
Please answer the question I asked: Where is it defined what is
"necessary", and who deems what is "necessary"?
>> As an example, the FSF do not appear to consider the ability to remove
>> invariant sections necessary in the current version of the GFDL for
>> example, whereas I (and others) do. The reference cards were just an
>> example of this need; aggregate works were another,
>
> The reference cards do not require the removal of the invariant
> sections. You can print the invariant sections on separate sheet(s)
> of paper.
This is not a workable solution. I consider this a case where removal
is necessary. When does this become so impractical as to be non-free?
When there are 5 pages of invariant sections? 50? 500?
[Don't bother answering this one; the debate has repeated the same
arguments rather too many times already.]
> If necessary I can try to explain better.
You have had ample opportunity to explain properly in the deluge of
posts you have sent over the last few weeks.
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
pgpURMwZ6G6Nk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
