Free Music License?

Jeroen Dekkers jeroen at
Wed Aug 17 13:08:22 UTC 2005

At Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:24:09 +0200,
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    For me, one required freedom is to modify the whole document as I see
>    fit. The GFDL currently fails to grant that freedom.
> The GNU GPL also fails to grant that freedom, if by `whole' you
> include the copyright notice(s).  Invariant sections are not
> considered to be part of the main document; consider them as copyright
> notices that programs print when you pass the `--version' flag.  The
> main document may be modified as you see fit.

If they are not part of the main document, I should be able to simply
remove them. But that's not the case, the invariant sections are a
very strong part of the document. So strong that you can't even remove
them. It's even more important than other sections of the documents,
because those sections can just be removed. So that they aren't part
of the document is just nonsense. It's like saying an engine isn't
part of a car, because it's in front of the steering wheel.

And that you aren't allowed to remove copyright notices is something
the law already says. A license can only reaffirm that. There of
course might also be some other small limitations, liking marking a
modified copy clearly as modified. But not being to modify or delete
entire sections just isn't free. It's like saying you can edit a whole
program, except two source files which do something different than the
rest of the program.

There is just no reason to accept such a restriction.

Jeroen Dekkers

More information about the Discussion mailing list