Re: [libreplanet-discuss] GFDL with Invariant Sections or other unmodifiable parts. Was: Final Thesis: H-node

[systemsaviour.com]

On 19/05/13 22:52, Michael Dorrington wrote:
> I posted in December 2012 and January 2013 to this list about how
> including manuals which are under the GFDL with Invariant Sections or
> other unmodifiable parts (which is similar to a CC with ND licence) in a
> distribution makes that distribution non-free.  The FSF agree in this
> article:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html#opinions
> 
> where if you scroll up a paragraph from the "opinions" section, the
> articles says:
> 
> "... recipes, computer programs, manuals and textbooks,
> reference works like dictionaries and encyclopedias.  For all these
> functional works, I believe that the issues are basically the same as
> they are for software and the same conclusions apply.  People should
> have the freedom even to publish a modified version because it's very
> useful to modify functional works."
> 
> However, the FSF still distribute manuals under the GFDL with Invariant
> Sections or other unmodifiable parts.

The key here is that the Invariant sections in the GFDL may only apply
to what the FSF refers to as Secondary Sections. From the GFDL-1.3,
section 1 paragraph 3:

"A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall
subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall
directly within that overall subject."

As such, the examples you gave earlier of texts of things that the four
essential freedoms should apply to (recipes, computer programs, manuals
and textbooks, reference works like dictionaries and encyclopedias) are
not impacted by these invariant sections at all.


> For more of my argument see my previous post to this list:
> 
> [libreplanet-discuss] GFDL with Invariant Sections or other unmodifiable
> parts. Was: Ubuntu malware: what to do?
> <http://lists.libreplanet.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2013-01/msg00000.html>

There are good reasons for including invariant sections such as those
you have mentioned in the post you linked. However, there do not appear
to be any practical reasons why limited invariant sections which do not
cover the useful components of the texts present a problem.


> How can we get the FSF to recognise this and so change the licence it
> uses for its manuals to be a free one?

We know that having sections of source code that cannot be modified is
detrimental to society. Qmail is an example of this, which has
apparently proven very difficult to maintain. However, what is not clear
is how an invariant section at the start or end of a document which does
not hinder freedom of actual subject matter have ever presented an
actual practical problem for anyone. My suggestion is that you start by
addressing this.

Regards,
Adam

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature