On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:30:12PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > > 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. > > You can modify it in the form of another invariant section. I don't see how > this is substantially different than a work that only allows distribution of > patches which would meet DFSG #4.
I don't see how it's similar. Patches only work for software because they're applied at *build* time, so they complicate the maintainer's job but the user doesn't see it.[1] This logic would seem to argue that an entire document under a "modification completely prohibited" license is free, because you can attach errata to the document. Errata is not analogous to build-time patching. > Only the invariant sections cannot be changed. The rest of the work (the > important part) can be. The DFSG applies to the entire work. If any one part of a work fails the DFSG, and that part can not be excised, the whole work fails. A program whose license says "distribution and modification for free, but if you distribute this one source file (out of thousands), pay me $100" is non-free if we can't delete that source file. [1] Tangent: even so, patch clauses effectively prohibit code reuse, one of the most fundamental benefits of free software--I don't understand why that's acceptable ... -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
