At Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:35:47 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:17:45PM +0200, Yavor Doganov wrote: > > If I include your personal position about, let's say, software freedom > > in my documentation under GFDL, I have to put it in an Invariant > > section, otherwise people would be able to change/twist your words and > > turn it into something completely different. That is the whole > > purpose of these sections, if they were not invariant, it wouldn't > > make sense at all. > > That's not true. The whole point of Invariant Sections is 'I want my pet > rant to be part of every version of the document', nothing else.
This is your interpretation. If you think that all present Invariant sections in all released GFDL manuals are "pet rants", well. If you think that a hypothetical rant that is put in an Invariant section might make the document non-free, then I agree. A section about "Child pornography" would make the document clearly illegal in many countries. The same applies to software, if you include in your GPLd program code that infringes an enforced patent, it would make it non-free in some countries. Since it is impossible to predict the danger in both cases, we cannot judge about the freedom in general based on such assumptions. > If some free software you wrote is taken by someone else and turned into > an application to generate porn texts, would that make you the author of > a pornographic application? No. Why not? Because it is clear to everyone > involved that you did not write that version of the application. I agree, but this is not a proper example. Code and text cannot be compared in this way because we don't speak with algorithms and mathematical expressions. We're (still) humans, not robots. I think this is the main point in this whole dispute -- the proponents of Anthony Towns' proposal think that arbitrary modifications must be allowed; the others apply some more (IMHO) reasonable judgement. > If you take a text written by someone else, remove their name without > their permission and put your name under it, then that is called > 'plagianism' which is illegal, with or without a Free license. > > If you take a text written by someone else, twist and turn their words, > and bring it out as if it were their words, then that's called > 'misrepresentation', and if you do it intentionally or refuse to > acknowledge your error afterwards, then that's illegal, with or without > a Free license. > > It is not sensible to require that the some text cannot be modified > because you want to prevent something which is already illegal, with or > without your requirements, if those requirements take away other > freedoms which should be protected. How can this be achieved in practice, I mean, in the spirit [1] of GFDL? If one includes a license text in a manual, it must be placed in an Invriant section because no one is allowed to modify it. Likewise, since it is unethical (even illegal) to modify somebody else's personal opinion, how this can be avoided, if such an opinion is included? The Invariant sections are a recursive necessity, this option will never be removed from the GFDL, and it shouldn't. Fortunately they're compatible with the DFSG (I know you disagree on this). > The point is about being allowed the freedom to judge whether inclusion > of that specific part of the document makes sense in a certain specific > situation. If we had the right to remove the GNU Manifesto, the Free Software Movement would slowly lose its influence. People, especially young people, tend to forget how this started and what ideals the movement follows and why they are important. I agree, that in certain specific situations it causes a lot of inconvenience. However, I also think that as Free Software activists that is a fair price that we should gladly pay. [1] Yes, every legal text has a spirit, it allows judges/arbitrators and parties involved to apply the so called "common sense" in case of eventual disputes. -- Yavor Doganov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
