GFDL and documentation freedom

[Rahul Sundaram]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 16, 2007, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 
>>>> There is there no guarantee that it will be used properly.
> 
>>> The point being?
> 
>> It is open to abuse.
> 
> This is a red herring.
> 
> If someone modifies a GFDLed text in an abusive way, adding an
> invariant section, the community can just ignore that change, or go
> back to the previous published version of that document and start from
> that.
> 
> If the original author published the first version of a text under the
> GFDL with an abusive invariant section, the community can just ignore
> that whole document, 
 > Under this light, I ask: so what?

Well yes, they can ignore and that's pretty similar to the treatment we 
give for non-free software. So the question that I am trying to get 
through, is non-free documents acceptable? It is clear that the impact 
of non-free documentation is going to be less than that of non-free 
software and FSF has considered propagation of its philosophy within 
those invariant sections to be more useful but is the impact and chance 
for abuse less than the advantages.

I am not convinced but I am leaning towards blocking non-free 
documentation too and that includes content with invariant sections.

> And?  We ship the GPL.  We even ship its preamble.  How is any of that
> related to technical content?  Why should this even matter?  And, more
> importantly, how does the presence of invariant sections actually gets
> in the way of the exercise of any of the freedoms?

Documentation with invariant sections deprive us of the freedom to 
remove content that isn't applicable, retain or modify what is 
applicable. Consider the case of software with comments that can't be 
removed. Sure it doesn't affect functionality but it can be outdated, 
misleading etc. Now consider that such comments are what form 
documentation. Bad invariant sections can definitely be harmful.
> 
> Except that one of the main purpose of invariant sections *is* to
> contain a copy of the license the program is under.

In part, yes.

>> How are you helping? There is still no packaging draft presented.
> 
> What does packaging have to do with this?

Everything. Our packaging guidelines include licensing information 
including firmware.

> The freedom promise darft was presented about a week ago.  Still no
> comments, still no wiki page.

I did tell you this. I agree with some of the changes you mention but 
you won't feedback unless you follow process outlined to you several 
times. Now I am going to do it myself and stop relying on you to do 
anything constructive with this. End of discussion from my side. Thanks.

Rahul