[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Critique of draft GNU Free Documentation License v1.0
> That is the whole point. We use invariant sections like these in GNU
> manuals already--for example, the GNU Manifesto in the Emacs
> Manual--so any license we write has to provide for them.
Why not then have this as an option in the license?
This might be possible. I will think about this.
If someone makes only minor modifications, I don't think they have a
right to an invariant section
If someone makes only minor modifications and adds an invariant section
which you want to remove, you can go back to the previous version.
You would lose his modifications, but since they are minor, that is
no great loss.
To resolve this problem I think
the license should require that the license would be attached to the
document whenever the document becomes unmaintained.
The passive voice ("be attached") avoids stating who the actor is.
In this case, that question is crucial. Who would this be
a requirement on? In what circumstances? To do what?
I can't see any possible answers for those questions.
As I see it, if we want the license to be included
in all copies once the document is unmaintained,
the only way to accomplish this reliably is to put the
license in all copies when they are made.
I'm still not clear who the "publisher" is for documents that are not
printed on paper but are just posted at websites.
The publisher is the person or organization who is responsible for the
distribution of copies to the public. In the case of a web site,
the publisher is whoever puts it on his web site.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org