On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:06:21AM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 08:03:48AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > > Proprietary licenses protect the authors' rights even more. Never > > publishing the work, and therefore never subjecting it to copyright > > law, also protects the authors' rights. Neither of those help freedom > > or the sharing of information. Again I ask: How do invariant sections > > (by themselves) promote sharing of information? > > They promote the sharing of the information in the invariant section. In > fact, they require it. The question is, will less people share the document > if they are forced to share it with the invariant section attached? I think > that only the people with the most extreme views would not.
Ability to modify and reuse a work are absolutely fundamental to a work being Free. Promoting the distribution of a work by prohibiting its modification is not a trade acceptable to free software. And that's what it does--promotes *distribution*, not *sharing*. If the work was being shared, we'd be allowed to change it. Instead, only the original author can do anything with it beyond distribution. The FSF calls that "software hoarding". -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
