[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
> > If you edit the GNU Manifesto and redistribute under the same name,
> > without telling clearly you modified it and what you modified, you
> > distribute a text which may be taken as someone's opinion while it's no
> > longer the case.
>
> And this may violate fraud, libel, or trademark laws.
But that's not what we are talking about. We are not about to list
which laws you can broke by doing that but whether the freedom the GFDL
brings are enough or not.
> >> The right question is not "Should I be able to change this document,
> >> which carries an imprimatur from a trademark?" but "Should I be able
> >> to derive works from this work?" or "Should I be able to use this
> >> neat thing in making my own thing?"
> >
> > I think that when you read the GNU Manifesto and follow it's spirit,
> > you're already "using this neat thing (an idea) making your own thing
> > (a software)".
>
> But it restricts the sort of software I may write: I may not write
> works which are derivative works of the GNU Manifesto.
And as I said previously, what matters in the GNU Manifesto is the
idea behind, not the rhetorical form.
If you absolutely want to use some phrases of the text, you can
quote it...
And you can even provide a "modified version" of the Manifesto, which
includes annotation and translation, as long as you do not modify the
original text itself, including it verbatim.
> >> > If a text express a personal feelings, typo are not about to be
> >> > fixed to enhance the text: it would change the nature of the
> >> > text. Would you like to enhance Cicero, for instance?
> >>
> >> Certainly, I am glad Cicero's work is now Free: I've used several of
> >> his techniques to enhance my own writing,
> >
> > I was speaking about enhancing Cicero itself.
>
> What does that mean?
It means enhancing Cicero own text by modifying Cicero's _own
words_, as suggested before. Is that interesting?
You made annotation which is not modifying Cicero's own words but
adding words along which Cicero's ones.
> I have written derivative works of Cicero's works.
I would say a "Modified Version", according to the GFDL definition of
it ("a work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied
verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another
language.")
> Were he alive, his copyright would apply.
And if I picked the GFDL, you work would have been perfectly legal, if
we forget the Secondary part distinction (completely off-topic when
dealing with something different than a manual).
> >> in some cases deriving from his text. I've also published
> >> translations and annotated editions of his work. I cannot do
> >> this with a GFDL Invariant Section.
> >
> > Annotation are not modifications to the text itself. I believe you are
> > making a mistake:
> > You can annotate and translate a Cicero's text, even if the whole
> > original text is a GFDL Invariant Section: you just have to include
> > this original invariant text. The GFDL does not forbid you to add your
> > own annotations and your own translation along with the original
> > text.
>
> Certainly it does: at that point, the invariant text is no longer
> Secondary.
(Let's forget the Secondary distinction for now: Cicero's most famous
texts would completely be under the scope of the Secondary part
according to the definition of a Secondary part of the GFDL license,
so it's not a problem.)
You have the right to make a copy of the GNU Manifesto, to annotate it
and to translate it, don't you? You only _must_ provide a complete,
unmodified, version of the GNU Manifesto, which is not a practical
problem, neither a moral problem ; is it?
At http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html , we can read
"Copyright (C) 1985, 1993 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim
copies of this document, in any medium, provided that the
copyright notice and permission notice are preserved, and that
the distributor grants the recipient permission for further
redistribution as permitted by this notice.
Modified versions may not be made."
By reading this, I only understand that I can distribute it. Not that
I cannot provide along with it notes and translations. As a matter of
fact, I can, see the GFDL text:
"Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may
distribute translations of the Document under the terms of
section 4. Replacing Invariant Sections with translations
requires special permission from their copyright holders, but
you may include translations of some or all Invariant Sections
in addition to the original versions of these Invariant
Sections. You may include a translation of this License, and
all the license notices in the Document, and any Warranty
Disclaimers, provided that you also include the original
English version of this License and the original versions of
those notices and disclaimers. In case of a disagreement
between the translation and the original version of this
License or a notice or disclaimer, the original version will
prevail."
In the Manifesto, Richard Stallman speak with the first person. Who,
apart from him, can ever take advantage of modifying such text?
Regards,
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
