| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Free Documentation License 1.3Free Documentation License 1.3Posted Nov 4, 2008 13:18 UTC (Tue) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)In reply to: Free Documentation License 1.3 by tao Parent article: Free Documentation License 1.3
It seems to me, given how text works, the current strategy is exactly equivalent to your 'ls --version' vs 'ls' example. The invariant sections don't interfere with the intended use.
In all practical formats (I don't regard a linear recording spoken word version of a manual, text book or similar reference work as practical) the manifesto doesn't get in your way at all. Anyone not interested (or at least intrigued) will skip past just like they skip the CIP page in a book.
I have a copy of "The Mammoth Book of Best New SF 21" at my bedside at the moment. It contains a introductory section from the collection's editor which, I kid you not, goes on for over 40 pages. This section touches on everything from summer blockbuster movies to the fate of electronic distribution for semi-pro authors, some of it is certainly close in tone to a rant. But you don't have to read it before getting to the stories, in fact you don't /have to/ read it at all.
What you shouldn't do though, is rip out those pages and pretend that they weren't part of the work because you personally didn't want to read them.
The idea that you can better sum things up in two or three words and avoid confusion is a terrible one. Take a look at the US. For almost any legitimate scientific, medical or political organisation there is a parallel organisation with a confusingly similar name, that exists to promote a narrow and often extremist religious agenda. The people behind these outfits know that the names are confusing, and they rely on it. Whether writing in support of a political campaign, appearing before a court or just on the TV news, they know that most people will assume based on their name that they're getting a balanced reasonable view point from experts, not religiously inspired fear-mongering.
And we know that Free Software is a target for this same sort of intentional confusion. Including the manifesto spells out what GNU actually stands for, thus helping to defend against the quite deliberate confusion that's coming from proprietary software companies and other opponents of these goals.
(Log in to post comments)
Free Documentation License 1.3 Posted Nov 4, 2008 14:55 UTC (Tue) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
I believe that is the problem. You should have the option (freedom?) of ripping the pages you want. In the same way nothing prohibits you from writing smileys all over the book and drawing mustaches on the author picture. Also nothing prohibits you from giving that "vandalized" book to someone else (as long as you don't lie that it was the author himself who "vandalized" the book). If someone makes a wonderful tutorial for, let's say, the command line but 50% of it is the glorification of the command line and rants against the GUI users, you could have a strong reason to keep the tutorial, because it's so wonderful, but strip the rest of the off-topic pages (if we assume the topic is not the rant). I can't understand why a distro couldn't distribute that tutorial stripped, as long as it's introduced as part of the full tutorial. It may be what the license orders, but then I would blame the author for choosing that license and just forget about that particular tutorial.
Free Documentation License 1.3 Posted Nov 4, 2008 17:49 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] Also nothing prohibits you from giving that "vandalized" book to someone else (as long as you don't lie that it was the author himself who "vandalized" the book).Uh, what would prohibit you from lying about this? You said giving, not selling. Even if selling, it would not likely be a problem unless someone could make the case that they bought the book under this false pretense, and then, at best, they might get their money back.
Free Documentation License 1.3 Posted Nov 4, 2008 18:03 UTC (Tue) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
You could be accused of defamation. Money exchange has nothing to do with it.
Free Documentation License 1.3 Posted Nov 5, 2008 2:35 UTC (Wed) by TRS-80 (subscriber, #1804) [Link] The example I've seen used is a single-page keyboard shortcut quick-reference. If you want to derive this from the Emacs manual, you have to include a copy of the invariant section, the GNU manifesto, which is several pages long, defeating the point of the quick-reference.
Free Documentation License 1.3 Posted Nov 5, 2008 17:41 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
One could argue, that mere collection of facts without any creative work within cannot be protected by copyright and as such the quickref can be freely taken off from the Emacs manual and distributed any way you would like.
|
|
||||||||||||