Jimmy Wales wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>Having read more RMS philosophy, I'm now
prepared to reply to this:
>Dream on. It would be great to fix the GNU FDL, but it'll never happen;
>RMS believes that Invariant Sections are an absolute necessity.
Can you direct me to a specific url where I can learn
more about why
RMS believes that Invariant Sections are an absolute necessity?
I'm relying mostly on discussions in the Debian legal list,
so use this Google URL (really long!):
<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=invariant+sections&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=lists.debian.org&safe=images>
to find threads to look at and search for Stallman as author.
More specifically, see this thread:
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/threads.html#00240>
and look at the posts written by Richard Stallman.
Here is a short one that sums up the basic reason:
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00546.html>
which is that RMS wants documentation written by the GNU Project
to always contain his philosophical essays on the need for free software.
Even if some proprietary jerk (^_^) edits the documentation later on,
still they can't remove his essays! (But they /can/ add their own.)
The best evidence that he won't budge
is that this argument with certain principal Debian players
has been going on a long time, and they really want the FDL to change.
Throughout the long debates, RMS hasn't budged an inch.
That's why I don't think that we would do any better.
Of course, we're not so much asking for the Invariant Sections to go
as we are asking for the GNU FDL to allow relicensing under CC BY-SA.
But CC BY-SA doesn't recognise Invariant Sections,
so that would allow the Invariant Sections to be removed in two steps.
RMS would see that in a second, as I'm sure you'll agree!
BTW, if in these discussions you see talk of "license incompatibility",
note that this is incompatibility between the FDL and the GPL,
not incompatibility with other free text licences like the CC licences.
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/threads.html#00138>
has more on this, but it doesn't really address non-GNU licences.
Incidentally, I've given a recent reference,
but Debian (or certain Debian people) and RMS
have been arguing about this for some time now:
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/threads.html#00006>
is an early debate.
-- Toby