The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses
Posted Oct 28, 2004 22:36 UTC (Thu) by piman
In reply to: The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses
Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses
> Did you read the OP?
Why are you so confrontational? Of course I read the original article -- I quoted it, and responded to it.
> It said "a work without invariant sections and without cover texts" is considered free. The context gives a reasoning - because then all the work can be changed and that is considered "free by most persons".
And I'm asking Jon why he thinks that. Most people I know who have looked at the FDL either come to the conclusion it's all free, or even documents without invariant sections are still non-free because of the issues I cited.
> Then you jump to a related, but different topic and write about "work with invariant sections and with cover texts" and you use "is still free" as an implication that the editor meant that.
I what? I thought my point was clear, but let me try again: In my experience dealing with the FDL, I find people who either consider it free, with or without invariant sections, and people who consider it non-free, with or without invariant sections. I do not find people who fit the editor's assertion of "most people", that think it's free without invariant sections but non-free with them. On the rare instances I do talk to such people, they are usually totally unaware of the DRM clause, and change their mind after learning about it.
> I would have never had the patience of Frank or David to discuss license issues with people who insult developers with every email they write.
I'm sorry you feel that way about some Debian developers. I have nothing but respect for the achievements of the LaTeX team, and apologize if you feel I insulted your efforts in any way. Not all Debian developers, even those on debian-legal, are Andrew Suffield.
to post comments)