You still haven't answered two questions put to you publicly,
You are trying to demand the kind of discussion which I've decided not
to participate in--one that resembles a cross-examination. But this
is not a court, not a cross-examination. You decide what to say, and
so do I. I won't always discuss what you want me to.
There are a number of reasons why I decide not to answer certain
questions. One is a matter of which topic they are about. I'm
discussing what is a free software license, not changes to the GFDL,
so when people raise the latter issue I decline to discuss it.
Another case is when a question is asked in a hostile tone. Often I
feel that the appropriate response is silence.
Even if I were inclined to answer every question that is posed to me
here and respond to every point, I don't have time. (I am getting 400
messages a day, and only half of them are junk.) There is no use in
my trying to respond to all the individual points that you and your
allies can raise, so I decided not to even try. Those who are
inclined to condemn me for not answering all the questions will
certainy get the chance. I may as well not worry about it.
Instead of trying to answer every point, I've decided to identify the
larger issues and write statements about them, choosing certain points
as examples to illustrate each issue.
I have not posted much about this issue in a couple of days, and I
have too much mail today to write a long message to address a larger
issue. So I decided to answer one of your questions.
>This appears to be because you believe that the types of modification
>which are restricted (generally speaking, modifications to fit in
>tightly limited spaces, either physical or programmatic) aren't
>necessary for freedom. Is this correct?
That is entirely correct. Several free software licenses are large
and thus make that sort of usage impossible. That's a practical
inconvenience, but no more.
However, in the case of the GFDL, the inconvenience does not have the
consequences that some people think.
Someone mentioned the fact that the GFDL says the work must "include"
the license where as the GPL says that the license must "accompany"
the work. His assumption was that this distinction had major
consequences, but on reflection I believe it does not make a
difference. A work can consist of multiple volumes, so the GFDL could
be in one volume while the other volume is as short as you need it to
be.
So it seems that you could indeed make a reference card from a
GFDL-covered manual. You would just have to distribute a little
booklet along with the reference card. The booklet would include the
license and any invariant sections.
