Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On May 16, 2007, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is there no guarantee that it will be used properly.
The point being?
It is open to abuse.
This is a red herring.
If someone modifies a GFDLed text in an abusive way, adding an
invariant section, the community can just ignore that change, or go
back to the previous published version of that document and start from
that.
If the original author published the first version of a text under the
GFDL with an abusive invariant section, the community can just ignore
that whole document,
> Under this light, I ask: so what?
Well yes, they can ignore and that's pretty similar to the treatment we
give for non-free software. So the question that I am trying to get
through, is non-free documents acceptable? It is clear that the impact
of non-free documentation is going to be less than that of non-free
software and FSF has considered propagation of its philosophy within
those invariant sections to be more useful but is the impact and chance
for abuse less than the advantages.
I am not convinced but I am leaning towards blocking non-free
documentation too and that includes content with invariant sections.
And? We ship the GPL. We even ship its preamble. How is any of that
related to technical content? Why should this even matter? And, more
importantly, how does the presence of invariant sections actually gets
in the way of the exercise of any of the freedoms?
Documentation with invariant sections deprive us of the freedom to
remove content that isn't applicable, retain or modify what is
applicable. Consider the case of software with comments that can't be
removed. Sure it doesn't affect functionality but it can be outdated,
misleading etc. Now consider that such comments are what form
documentation. Bad invariant sections can definitely be harmful.
Except that one of the main purpose of invariant sections *is* to
contain a copy of the license the program is under.
In part, yes.
How are you helping? There is still no packaging draft presented.
What does packaging have to do with this?
Everything. Our packaging guidelines include licensing information
including firmware.
The freedom promise darft was presented about a week ago. Still no
comments, still no wiki page.
I did tell you this. I agree with some of the changes you mention but
you won't feedback unless you follow process outlined to you several
times. Now I am going to do it myself and stop relying on you to do
anything constructive with this. End of discussion from my side. Thanks.
Rahul
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
