> If the license for the code did not allow modification, you could not > make it implement different behavior. You would substantively lack > the ability to change the functionality. That is a lack of real > freedom.
I fail to see how this differs from an invariant section. (We can't add a change file to the invariant section before building the "binary", so that's moot.) > That is possible. In the same way, he could be in a country that > prohibits the functionality of the program, [...] I thought about that, but those are technical problems innate in free software. The problems with the invariant sections are political, not innate and unnecessary. > You would likewise be free the GFDL-covered manual for the robot to > document your baby mulcher. Inclusion of invariant sections, if any, > would not stop you from making it a useful and accurate manual for the > mulcher. I can't ship a manual for the baby mulcher to my customers that execrates the baby mulcher. I don't see much point in continuing this conversation. You see the problems with invariant sections; you just don't think they're important. As for me and most of Debian's maintainers, they are important enough to make stuff with invariant sections non-free. -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers