FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May 14, 2007, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>> Documentation is important for software, but it's not software.  It
>> ought to be modifyable such that it can be maintained in sync with the
>> software.  Invariant sections don't stop this if used properly.

> There is there no guarantee that it will be used properly.

The point being?

> If anybody adds text like say "Free software sucks" in a invariant
> section then we can't include that documentation

Why not?

> See the other ones highlighted in
> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml

I'm familiar with those issues.  I'm also familiar with GFDLv2
drafting, that addresses these concerns.
http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html

> Documentation that has invariant sections are clearly non-free.

Documentation is not software.  Licenses are not software.  I'm trying
to discuss software freedom issues.  What are you trying to prove with
this distraction?

Invariant sections are appropriate for opinions, public statements and
legal content.  Sometimes it might make sense to permit invariant
sections to be removed, but not modified.  Most of the
political-opinion texts FSFs publish permit verbatim copying only.
Do you think this presents any form of moral inconsistency?  I don't.
I see this as using the right tool for the right job.

There are moral and practical reasons for software freedom.

Not all the same freedoms make the same sense for all kinds of forms
of expression.  Different kinds of texts, for example, serve different
purposes, and their purposes may very well be negated if the wrong
changes are made.

Technical documentation content is supposed to match the software, so
that ought to be as free as the software it matches.

Non-technical content, such as a copy of the software license, must
not be modified or removed.

Copyright notices may be added and updated, but not removed.

Of course invariant sections can be abused.

So can software licenses and copyright notices.  So what are you going
to do, ban software licenses and copyright notices because they can be
abused?

Oh, non-Free firmware can also be abused.  Can we ban it too, pretty
please? ;-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}