Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:28:18AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Anton Zinoviev wrote: >> > Derived Works >> > >> > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow >> > them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the >> > original software. >> > >> > Notice that DFSG do not say "arbitrary modifications". >> >> The general interpretation we've taken of this is "must allow >> modifications in general, with restrictions allowable if they do not >> prevent reasonable use cases". > > What is the meaning of "modifications in general"? I am just asking. > >> "Invariant sections" prevent several reasonable use cases, which is why >> they're generally considered non-free. > > The only example in this and the previous thread about such case is > the requirement to include the invariant sections and the text of GFDL > in man-pages generated from info-manuals. I explained why this is not > necessary.
An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and backside of a sheet of paper (autogenerated to always match the current version) that contains the most important commands, functions or whatever of the software that the manual documents. For example a cheat sheet for GNU Emacs. And I must say that I didn't get your reasoning why it wouldn't be necessary to include the invariant sections. You talked about whether a book with 90% non-technical invariant stuff is still technical, but I missed how you want to explain that I may remove the invariant sections. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
