On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:34:26PM +0100, Javier Fern�ndez-Sanguino Pe�a wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:16:22PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote: > > > > > PS: From my point of view, Invariant sections are perfectly ok when you > > > are talking about non-technical related issues (example: author's opinions > > > in an article) > > > > Strongly disagree. Freedom to fork a project is the basic right that > > Debian guarantees its users, and invariant sections remove that ability. > > Forking a project is not the same as putting words in my mouth I > didn't say and that's what Invariant sections are for.
You're probably thinking of "immutable" sections, or something. That would be a good name for sections that you're not allowed to modify. The "Invariant Sections" in the GFDL are far more restrictive: you're not allowed to ever modify or remove them, no matter how much you modify the rest of the documentation. And even if you lift only a single chapter from a GFDLed document, you have to copy all of its Invariant Sections verbatim. The combination of immutability and nonremovability is what makes them non-free, in my opinion. I wouldn't have a problem with some immutable sections, as long as they contain no technical information and can be discarded in the event of a significant fork. Richard Braakman
