Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:53 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu: > Unfortunately DFSG are not unambiguous and obviously the people > understand them in various ways.
Well, the text in DFSG3 may be not well tight. But I think we should look at its direct reference, which can be said as the most sane interpretation. It's clear to me that there is a reference to freedom 1[1], and then, it can guide the interpretation of DFSG3. Freedom 1 clearly says: "The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs". So, In some cases removing the invariant sections is needed to adapt it to whoever needs (be it a library that wants to reduce paper cost, be it a embedded apps developer that wants to reduce disk usage, or be it a debian packager who wants to include part of some GFDL doc in a man page). So, IMHO, it's quite unreasonable to say that invariant sections fit in DFSG3. And this way, Anton's proposal do require a change in DFSG3, which in this proposal means an exception to GFDL. > If we decide that the invariant > sections are free, this will require some of us to change their > interpretations of DFSG. > Because of this ambiguity I realy belive that we need to modify DFSG > in some future GR. Sorry, but I don't think that's possible. Your proposal means adding a "except for GFDL invariant sections" in DFSG3. Even if it automatically doesn't change that text, it does change it's use, which IMHO, is the same thing. daniel P.S.: One thing I don't know if has been already suggested to FSF is to require changing the work's name before removing the invariant sections, as it's clear to me that the invariant sections exists to preserve the author's integrity (in the sense of DFSG4), this way, it would fit in the exception already stated there. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
