Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | Everything, which is reasonable to be modified, must be modifiable > Things that are unreasonable to be modified for me are license texts > and personal opinions (or rants), which can only be copied verbatim.
You are, once more, ignoring that invariant sections prohibit not only modification, but also removal. How is it unreasonable to remove a personal statement? Moreover, the modification of "personal statements" has a long and venerable history. One of the most stellar examples is the modification of John Locke's "life, liberty, and property" into Thomas Jefferson's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Are you saying that it was unreasonable of Jefferson to make that modification? What about the modification when, for example, Ovid's "Metamophoses" is translated into English? Unmodifiable sections cannot be translated either (unless you keep the entire original too). > There is contradiction if Anthony's (or Adeodato's) proposal passes. > Since Debian is tolerating and distributing non-free software, many > people will ask themselves how the Debian Project is questioning the > freeness of the GFDL, a license acknowledged as free in the community. > It is not a contradiction, it's a hypocrisy. We do not claim that non-free software is evil, only that it is not part of the Debian distribution itself. We do not claim that the GFDL is evil, only that it does not satisfy the DFSG. I'm quite certain that GFDL'd manuals would of course be perfectly acceptible for the Debian non-free archive. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
