On May 14, 2007, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Documentation is important for software, but it's not software. It >> ought to be modifyable such that it can be maintained in sync with the >> software. Invariant sections don't stop this if used properly. > There is there no guarantee that it will be used properly. The point being? > If anybody adds text like say "Free software sucks" in a invariant > section then we can't include that documentation Why not? > See the other ones highlighted in > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml I'm familiar with those issues. I'm also familiar with GFDLv2 drafting, that addresses these concerns. http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html > Documentation that has invariant sections are clearly non-free. Documentation is not software. Licenses are not software. I'm trying to discuss software freedom issues. What are you trying to prove with this distraction? Invariant sections are appropriate for opinions, public statements and legal content. Sometimes it might make sense to permit invariant sections to be removed, but not modified. Most of the political-opinion texts FSFs publish permit verbatim copying only. Do you think this presents any form of moral inconsistency? I don't. I see this as using the right tool for the right job. There are moral and practical reasons for software freedom. Not all the same freedoms make the same sense for all kinds of forms of expression. Different kinds of texts, for example, serve different purposes, and their purposes may very well be negated if the wrong changes are made. Technical documentation content is supposed to match the software, so that ought to be as free as the software it matches. Non-technical content, such as a copy of the software license, must not be modified or removed. Copyright notices may be added and updated, but not removed. Of course invariant sections can be abused. So can software licenses and copyright notices. So what are you going to do, ban software licenses and copyright notices because they can be abused? Oh, non-Free firmware can also be abused. Can we ban it too, pretty please? ;-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
