FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 00:01 +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
> 	You also don't comment my first paragraph about the problems with
> invariant/dedications.

Dedications can't be Invariants.

> > > >    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.
> > Q.E.D.
> 
> 	I do not understand "Q.E.D.". For the other part, if you understand
> "run" as "read", which I think is quite appropiate, it works.

But "read" is not "run" (freedom 0) but "study" (freedom 1).

> 	I respect you to not want the text you've written be modified, no
> matter the contents, but then it is NOT FREE.

Passing yourself for me is not allowed by law. So I think your confusing
a math text book I write with an invariant section where I say how I can
have X or Y levels of orgasm with the theories of a certain researcher.

Rui
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20060223/ba51419d/attachment.sig>