[DS-discuss] GFDL (was: Re: debian and rms)

[Ramanan Selvaratnam]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> windows sucks is not a childish statement by itself
> but if put under say apache howto to satisfy the
> author's thrust becomes childish. if added under
> invariant becomes irrelevant non free and non
> removable. any fdl'ed doc is allowed to have invariant
> sections essentially leaving a option for parts of it
> to contain non modifiable sections.
Incorrect. Any non modifiable section? No! Only what is defined as 
'Secondary Section'

> do take time to read the fdl completely
>
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
'A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of 
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the 
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject 
(or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly 
within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a 
textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any 
mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical 
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, 
commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.'

If a nutter wrote a good manual on Apache so be it. I will use it if 
there is a need for it and acknowledge the author as a nutter if I can 
be bothered to read up his/her rant.

> If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the
> Document numbering more than 100, you must either
> include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with
Sorry I was not astute enough to understand what was 'machine readable' 
and that you were referring to the content.
...got it all wrong in my previous mail.

I understand the need for Transparent copies and am sure you do too.
My prefered example of Opaque copy will be printed material (ie  in paper).


> each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy
> a computer-network location from which the general
> network-using public has access to download using
> public-standard network protocols a complete
> Transparent copy of the Document, free of added
> material. If you use the latter option, you must take
> reasonably prudent steps, when you begin distribution
> of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that this
> Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the
> stated location until at least one year after the last
> time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or
> through your agents or retailers) of that edition to
> the public. 
>
> It is requested, but not required, that you contact
> the authors of the Document 
>
>
> this means that every encrypted copy should be
> accompanied by a non encrypted one.
>
>  
I guess, encryption might be useful to ensure the integrity of the 
content (any other use?) and would qualify as Opaque copy .
Then by its electronic nature I do not see how distribution of a non 
encrypted version alongside it will be a problem.
Anyway would it not be the case that  as soon as the encryption is 
deciphered one will have the source or simply be pointed to a URL for 
the source?

Most importantly let us remembe this is for a number > 100.
OK this might be  a constraint of freedom when compared to the GPL'ed 
software model) but I guess this is the special arrangement that will 
make publishers take up the GFDL. No?

Best regards,

Ramanan