FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
rms at 1407.org
Wed Feb 22 20:55:12 UTC 2006
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 21:11 +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
> And besides that, FDL doesn't limit the purpose of an invariant section,
> so in fact is allowing to restrict the freedom to modify the work.
I guess you didn't bother to check yourself and chose to believe some.
The "Invariant Sections" are certain *Secondary* Sections whose
titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in
the notice that says that the Document is released under this
License. *If a section does not fit the above definition of
Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant.*
The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the
Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are
So Invariants are Secondaries that can't be modified. If it isn't
Secondary, it can't be an Invariant. So. What is a Secondary?
A "Secondary Section" is a *named*appendix* or a *front-matter
section* of the Document *that deals exclusively* with the
*relationship of the publishers or authors* of the Document *to
the Document's overall subject* (or to related matters) and
*contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall
subject.* (Thus, *if the Document is in part a textbook of
mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any
mathematics.*) The relationship could be a matter of historical
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of
legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position
It's much easier to dispel specific doubts and misbeliefs like the one
you stated instead of Debian's bogus "GFDL is not Free".
> > Why does FSF have two distinct opinions about the adequate level of
> > freedom for manuals and for software?
> > Because they are different. It is that simple.
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
> But the 4 freedoms do not change, it does not matter wheter it is
> software or not.
Oh really? Let's see...
Theory: 4 software freedoms are the same for books
If Theory is true then you can "run" a book for "an
purpose" (software freedom 0) since it is a software freedom.
But since you can't "run" books, then you can't exercise one of
the four freedoms.
Hence, the 4 software freedoms are not the same for books.
> > Because such restrictions make sense, you don't need the right to
> > modify my thoughts about why I wrote the book, or to whom I dedicated
> > the book.
> That's right. But then, your thought are not free, and if you insist to
> attach those thoughts to your work, then your work neither is free.
But my thoughts and opinions are mine, and not yours. I made them and
those specific words where what I wrote and shared with you.
If you alter that you are effectively rewriting what _I_ said. That's
close to 1984's new speak.
> I also agree that it makes sense that some philosophy text, music
> recordings or images can't be changed. But IF they can't be changed,
> they are NOT free. Let's not pretend that everything must be free and
> next change the meaning of freedom.
Let's not confuse the purpose of freedom. You don't have freedom without
limits, or you'll be able to exert power over your "inferiors" (think
proprietary versions of Free Software that doesn't use a user protecting
license like the GNU GPL).
The moment you want to make it so that what _I_ wrote is something else,
you're placing words in my mouth, so you're not exercising freedom.
> Sorry, but if the documentation of a free program has FDL, then it can
> contain invariant sections, so that I am limited :)
Wrong. Only if it _has_ invariants.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Discussion