Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation > > > (containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant sections. > > > > This might be a reasonable thing, but it is not what the GFDL requires. > > actually, it is. the GFDL explicitly says that you can provide a link to > an internet site - and, contrary to loony zealot propaganda, it does not > say that you must operate or maintain that site yourself. You forgot something... > If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document > numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable ^^^ ^^^ > Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with >~~~ > each Opaque copy a publicly-accessible computer-network location > > containing a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of > ~~~ > added material, which the general network-using public has access > ~ > to download anonymously at no charge using public-standard network > ~~ > protocols. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably > ~~ > prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in > quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus > accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the > last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through your > agents or retailers) of that edition to the public. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 06:21:19PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > I didn't mean one specific license, but the requirement of DFSG: > > >The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in > >modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of > >"patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the > >program at build time. > > > So the license may require the distribution as original_source+patch_file. > > Do I understand correctly that you are now arguing that the interpretation > of the DFSG as *not* requiring permission to make arbitrary modifications In this part of the thread we are not talking about any particular interpretation of DFSG. We are trying to determine the exact conditions under which the "patch clause" would make the compilation works impossible. > by arguing that some other hypothetical license that we've never > seen and never had an opportunity to decide on the freeness of as a > community *also* passes a strict literal reading of the DFSG? How > is this at all productive? If someone would provide us with list of licenses that Debian accepts and that use the "patch clause", I would appreciate this. Unfortunately the only license I could find was QPL and QPL is not typical "patch requiring" license because it does not require patches but accepts any technique that allows to keep the changes separate from the original software. > The pervailing sentiment on debian-legal (and, TTBOMK, among the ftp team) > is *not* "if there is at least one way the license passes the letter of the > DFSG, it must be ok for main", so I don't see how providing your own > interpretation of the DFSG that allows a hypothetical license Debian has > never considered to pass the patch clause really does anything to support > your thesis. I am not going to use any specific interpretation of DFSG. DFSG says the license may restrict the code from being distribute in modified form if allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. This is all I am going to use. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation > > > > (containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant sections. > > > > > > This might be a reasonable thing, but it is not what the GFDL requires. > > > > actually, it is. the GFDL explicitly says that you can provide a link to > > an internet site - and, contrary to loony zealot propaganda, it does not > > say that you must operate or maintain that site yourself. > > You forgot something... > > > If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document > > numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable >^^^ Er, that just means if you distribute 100 copies, you need provide neither a transparent copy or a link. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:40:38PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:00:34PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > > Yes, I am uneasy myself on that clause. But see, I regard > > removal of copyright notices as prohibited by copyright law, and if > > the original program displayed copyright notices, not being able to > > remove those notices from the displayed text is closer in spirit to > > the non-removal of copyright notices from the sources that I think it > > passes my "is free" radar. > > I can see why you are uneasy with that clause - it makes impossible to > just say "arbitrary modification". And the clause we are talking > about is not the only necessary exception for "arbitrary > modification". If you say that the non-removal of those notices from > the displayed text passes your "is free" radar and the invariant > secondary sections do not pass -- I can acknowledge this and I > understand this. However I don't understand why you think that your > interpretation is the only one possible -- it is not. Alright, I'm going to stick my head into this thread. I am unconvinced that the DFSG means 'all modifications', I think that it really does mean all reasonable modifications. But the GFDL fails this, _entirely_. Even by the bounds of 'reasonable modifications' the GFDL with _any_ invariant sections is completely non-free, and how should be fairly obvious, but I'll give an extreme example: I'll take a large GNU manual, for reasons that could be anything from because I'm feeling strange today to because I'm fond of the build system they use for producing other formats of the document, I want to cut it down. So I chop it down until there is nothing _except_ the copyright statement and the invariant sections. I can no longer make any modifications, I can't change the copyright statement because, well, the law where I live forbids me from doing that. And I can't change _anything_ in the document itself, I can add to it, but I can't change it. No license changes have been made, no weird clauses have been invoked that changes the rules, but the document at that point is not modifiable, you can add to it, but nothing else at all. And the last time I looked, we were ruling that shipping programs with non-free data files was also enough to make them non-free. So, in short, it doesn't matter WHAT interpretation of the DFSG you go for as far as modifications allowed, a GFDL document with invariant sections can not be free because they consist of components which by the license you can not remove, and which by the license are non-free by themselves. Would you care to make an attempt at a reason why the GFDL should be allowed, and at the same time programs which ship with required components which fail the DFSG must be in contrib or non-free instead of main? (Yes, I'm aware of the argument that the license breaks if the invariant sections are no longer secondary, if you invoke that in the argument I will read it as stating that I am also not free to remove the non-invariant portions of my choosing, which makes it even LESS free.) Zephaniah E. Hull. -- 1024D/E65A7801 Zephaniah E. Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 92ED 94E4 B1E6 3624 226D 5727 4453 008B E65A 7801 CCs of replies from mailing lists are requested. "Pshaw! *I* am a paid-up member of the Mystic Order of Arachnid Vigilance." "Please. Why don't you go fight evil somewhere else? I'm trying to sleep here." -- Rodger Donaldson and Eric The Read in the Scary Devil Monastery signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:37:00PM +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said: > > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > > > alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation > > > > > (containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant sections. > > > > > > > > This might be a reasonable thing, but it is not what the GFDL requires. > > > > > > actually, it is. the GFDL explicitly says that you can provide a link to > > > an internet site - and, contrary to loony zealot propaganda, it does not > > > say that you must operate or maintain that site yourself. > > > > You forgot something... > > > > > If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document > > > numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable > >^^^ > > Er, that just means if you distribute 100 copies, you need provide > neither a transparent copy or a link. s/neither/either/ Which means the link thing Craig is talking about doesn't apply for small quantities. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:47:54AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > I am unconvinced that the DFSG means 'all modifications', I think that > it really does mean all reasonable modifications. > > But the GFDL fails this, _entirely_. > > Even by the bounds of 'reasonable modifications' the GFDL with _any_ > invariant sections is completely non-free, and how should be fairly > obvious, but I'll give an extreme example: > > I'll take a large GNU manual, for reasons that could be anything from > because I'm feeling strange today to because I'm fond of the build > system they use for producing other formats of the document, I want to > cut it down. > > So I chop it down until there is nothing _except_ the copyright > statement and the invariant sections. > > I can no longer make any modifications, I can't change the copyright > statement because, well, the law where I live forbids me from doing > that. > > And I can't change _anything_ in the document itself, I can add to it, > but I can't change it. so, your complaint is that if you delete the contents of the document, then you can no longer change it? are you for real? do you seriously take this as credible proof that GFDL is non-free? i see it as proof that it IS free - otherwise you wouldn't have to grasp at straws to find such absurd "proofs". did you notice that the reason you can only add to the document but can't change it is because you deleted the contents? that there's NOTHING there to change? how can you change something that doesn't exist any more? you can't, regardless of license. to reuse your line of argument with a different license: if i delete all the lines of source code in a GPL program (leaving only the license and copyright notice) then i can no longer change it. i can add to it, but i can't change it. therefore the GPL is non-free. and the same for EVERY other software license, too. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:34:19AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:47:54AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > > I am unconvinced that the DFSG means 'all modifications', I think that > > it really does mean all reasonable modifications. > > > > But the GFDL fails this, _entirely_. > > > > Even by the bounds of 'reasonable modifications' the GFDL with _any_ > > invariant sections is completely non-free, and how should be fairly > > obvious, but I'll give an extreme example: > > > > I'll take a large GNU manual, for reasons that could be anything from > > because I'm feeling strange today to because I'm fond of the build > > system they use for producing other formats of the document, I want to > > cut it down. > > > > So I chop it down until there is nothing _except_ the copyright > > statement and the invariant sections. > > > > I can no longer make any modifications, I can't change the copyright > > statement because, well, the law where I live forbids me from doing > > that. > > > > And I can't change _anything_ in the document itself, I can add to it, > > but I can't change it. > > so, your complaint is that if you delete the contents of the document, > then you can no longer change it? > > are you for real? do you seriously take this as credible proof that GFDL > is non-free? Are you just missing the point, or are you trying to miss the point? > > i see it as proof that it IS free - otherwise you wouldn't have to grasp > at straws to find such absurd "proofs". > > > did you notice that the reason you can only add to the document but > can't change it is because you deleted the contents? that there's > NOTHING there to change? how can you change something that doesn't exist > any more? you can't, regardless of license. Incorrect. I have removed everything, except for the overly large political statement. According to the license, I can not change it, and I can not remove it. At that point, it is the entirety of the document, it is more then one or two lines of text, it is _not_ a copyright statement or license which is covered by law instead of the license. Now, it is still under the GNU FDL, there is still content here, the content, which is now the _entirety_ of the document, is something that by the license I can not remove and can not change. > > > to reuse your line of argument with a different license: if i delete all > the lines of source code in a GPL program (leaving only the license and > copyright notice) then i can no longer change it. i can add to it, but i > can't change it. therefore the GPL is non-free. BT, sorry, in those cases you no longer have a document, in the case of the GFDL you may still have a great deal of document under a license which is, at that point, unquestionably non-free. Please, use some sense here, a large invariant section is not 'nothing', it actually does exist and it doesn't matter if you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and start singing. Zephaniah E. Hull. -- 1024D/E65A7801 Zephaniah E. Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 92ED 94E4 B1E6 3624 226D 5727 4453 008B E65A 7801 CCs of replies from mailing lists are requested. I am an "expert". Fear me, for I will wreak untold damage upon anything I can get my grubby hands on. -- Matt McLeod on ASR. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 05:55:54PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:34:19AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > so, your complaint is that if you delete the contents of the document, > > then you can no longer change it? > > > > are you for real? do you seriously take this as credible proof that GFDL > > is non-free? > > Are you just missing the point, or are you trying to miss the point? i'm trying to make you see the point. you seem highly resistant to clue installation. > > did you notice that the reason you can only add to the document but > > can't change it is because you deleted the contents? that there's > > NOTHING there to change? how can you change something that doesn't exist > > any more? you can't, regardless of license. > > Incorrect. no, absolutely correct. there's nothing there to change BECAUSE you deleted everything that could be changed. you can still add whatever you like AND you still have the same freedoms that you had before you deleted the content. > I have removed everything, except for the overly large political > statement. > > According to the license, I can not change it, and I can not remove it. Q. doctor, it hurts when i bash my head with a hammer. A. don't do that, then. in other words, if you do stupid things, you've got to expect stupid results. and whatever you think your point is, it's still an extreme & absurd scenario - if that's all you can come up with to "prove" that GFDL is non-free, if you have to come up with some contrived and ridiculous scenario, then you can't honestly say that it is non-free. i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only freedom). > At that point, it is the entirety of the document, it is more then one > or two lines of text, it is _not_ a copyright statement or license > which is covered by law instead of the license. neither of these things are actually covered by law - there is no specific law that states "you may not delete or alter copyright notices or licenses". these things are just implicit convention. > Now, it is still under the GNU FDL, there is still content here, the > content, which is now the _entirety_ of the document, is something > that by the license I can not remove and can not change. yes, what's left are the invariant sections. by definition, unchangeable. you have such mastery of the obvious. unfortunately, you're sadly lacking in understanding. the document is, in essence, no different to what it was before you deleted all the content. you are still free to add whatever you like to the content, and to change that as you please. you have, in fact, exercised your freedom already BY deleting the original content. more importantly, you are making the mistake of assuming that because you deleted the contents, the *real* primary topic of the document, that the secondary sections are automatically promoted to the status of primary topic. that is a false assumption. by definition, an invariant section can only be a secondary section, AND a secondary section CAN NOT BE the primary topic of a document. so that means either: 1. (in the unlikely case that your auto-promotion theory is true) since they're not secondary sections, they can't be invariant: no invariant sections, no problem. 2. (otherwise) since there's no primary topic to hang them on to, the invariant sections go too, so you have no document at all: no document, no license, no problem. in either case, the outcome is ridiculous because the scenario conditions are ridiculous. what you actually have is an empty document. i.e. nothing. not worth worrying about. it doesn't matter in the slightest. > > to reuse your line of argument with a different license: if i delete > > all the lines of source code in a GPL program (leaving only the > > license and copyright notice) then i can no longer change it. i can > > add to it, but i can't change it. therefore the GPL is non-free. > > BT, sorry, in those cases you no longer have a document, in the > case of the GFDL you may still have a great deal of document under a > license which is, at that point, unquestionably non-free. you have exactly as much document with GPL (or other license) as with the GFDL - you have the invariant sections (copyright notice(s), license text, etc). it may not DO anything, but that's besides the point - if you do something stupid, you've got to expect stupid results. and just as with the GFDL you still have the same freedoms you had before - you can add code, change it, or delete it. > Please, use some sense here, a large invariant section is not 'nothing', > it actually does exist and it doesn't matter if you close your eyes, put > your fingers in your ears, and start singing. some people prefer not to waste time worrying about ridiculously absurd contrived scenarios. there are lots
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:37:00PM +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said: > > > You forgot something... > > > > > > > If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document > > > > numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable > > >^^^ > > > > Er, that just means if you distribute 100 copies, you need provide > > neither a transparent copy or a link. > s/neither/either/ > > Which means the link thing Craig is talking about doesn't apply for > small quantities. Right. Do you see a requirement like this for copies <= 100 ? My first reading is that this means, if you distribute > 100 copies, you must do either A or B. If you distbute <= 100 copies, these requirements do not apply, as they are not spelled out. Admittedly, it's a stupid rule. However, you seem to be arriving at an entirely different interpretation than I do. Can you point me to the verbiage that gave you your interpretation? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Fw: debian-vote
- Original Message - From: Pierce Terence To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2006 7:38 AM Subject: hey debian-vote
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 18:17:19 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation >>> (containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant >>> sections. >> >> This might be a reasonable thing, but it is not what the GFDL >> requires. > actually, it is. the GFDL explicitly says that you can provide a link > to an internet site - and, contrary to loony zealot propaganda, it > does not say that you must operate or maintain that site yourself. The link allowance only applies to providing a "transparent copy" (i.e. source) of the documentation. It does not allow you to just link to the invariant sections, which is a completely different thing. Since the invariant section is part of the document, it must be distributed as part of modified document. Perhaps you should actually read the part of the license that you quoted. > If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document > numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable > Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with >~~~ > each Opaque copy a publicly-accessible computer-network location > > containing a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of > ~~~ > added material, which the general network-using public has access > ~ > to download anonymously at no charge using public-standard network > ~~ > protocols. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably > ~~ > prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in > quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus > accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the > last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through your > agents or retailers) of that edition to the public. -- Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:30:40 +0100, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:37:00PM +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said: >> > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL >> > PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> > > > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > > > >> > > > > alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation >> > > > > (containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant >> > > > > sections. >> > > > >> > > > This might be a reasonable thing, but it is not what the GFDL requires. >> > > >> > > actually, it is. the GFDL explicitly says that you can provide a link to >> > > an internet site - and, contrary to loony zealot propaganda, it does not >> > > say that you must operate or maintain that site yourself. >> > >> > You forgot something... >> > >> > > If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document >> > > numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable >> >^^^ >> >> Er, that just means if you distribute 100 copies, you need provide >> neither a transparent copy or a link. > s/neither/either/ > Which means the link thing Craig is talking about doesn't apply for > small quantities. You are not required to provide a transparent copy for small quantities. So the fact that the license allows you to provide a link to the transparent copy does not matter. You can still just provide a link to the transparent copy, and still fulfill the requirements of the license. Since the license does not require you to provide a transparent copy at all, providing a link is doing more work than what is required. -- Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: [the topic is invariant sections] > i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL > proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not > merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only > freedom). 1) A while back, someone quoted Richard Stallman (not that it's happened just once). If that was in anything GFDLed with large invariant sections, as philosophical things tend to be, the quote wouldn't have been used, since it would make the message too long. Also, the kind of quotes relevant to this discussion would be in invariant sections, only making things more complicated. 2) If someone wanted to create a work discussing this GFDL-debate, and everyone's work was GFDLed with invariant sections, could they? Undoubtedly a lot of what is relevant would be in invariant sections. Would you want to try to write something under those conditions? Invariant stuff places an unworkable restriction beyond the author exercising due care to cite everything properly. Counterargument: "Oh, so you can still write about it without including them, so it's free". That sounds like saying you don't need be able to use code verbatim as long as you can reimplemented it. Including invariant stuff as-is wouldn't work, it would ruin _your_ work. Debian wouldn't accept either of those. > proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not > merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only > freedom). "Everything is free, if you give up enough freedoms". If everyone uses the GPL, we live in harmony. If everyone uses the GFDL with (different) invariant sections, we are not. We don't notice that since in general, there aren't invariant sections. rkd -- | Richard Darst - rkd@ - lefschetz: up 35 days, 6:15 | zgib.net | "Ye shall know the truth and -- the truth shall make you free" IANADD, my productivity is zero, etc. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:14:12 -0600, Richard Darst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > [the topic is invariant sections] >> i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL >> proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not >> merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only >> freedom). > 1) > A while back, someone quoted Richard Stallman (not that it's happened > just once). If that was in anything GFDLed with large invariant > sections, as philosophical things tend to be, the quote wouldn't have > been used, since it would make the message too long. Also, the kind > of quotes relevant to this discussion would be in invariant sections, > only making things more complicated. Quoting someone for the purposes of commentary is covered under fair use (which has been brought up in this discussion before) in the U.S., and I believe that most other jurisdictions would allow that as well. If it was not allowed, copyright law would disallow you from using the quote at all, anyways. Since this kind of copying is allowed by copyright law, you have permission to distribute apart from any other license, and so the conditions of the GFDL do not need to be followed. (Same goes for your example 2.) -- Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
