[Sussex] GFDL

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 06:41:23PM +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> Well, I've covered it several times over, but it comes down to this:
> 
>    * Standard bodies and government agencies require legal protection
>      from misrepresentation of standard documentation.
>    * Publishers require that credits are maintained.
>    * Publishers require that where modification is made to what they
>      published that this modification is obvious and can in no way
>      result in legal action against them.
>    * The GPL requires that source code is made available and the
>      definition of "source code" for a book is a very loose legal term
>      that really doesn't benefit anyone.  The GFDL stipulates instead
>      that any modification that is reproduced above a certain level
>      must be provided with an electronically editable version.  This
>      is a serious concern, a GPL'd book on your desk causes problem.
>      If you make margin notes in it and then pass it on to someone
>      else you are required to make you margin notes available in an
>      editable form - pretty stupid IMHO.

I see these points, and can broadly agree with them.

But you have not justified me here why I need to accept invariant sections
that contain political essays.  The only two O'Reilly books I have that
have a political slant to them are "Cracking DES" and "Open Sources".
The others on DNS, MySQL, Emacs, ... do not.  I can see the need for
invariant section where they are needed for legal protection or creditation.
I can also see that some media have different needs and requirements as a
result of the technology used by that media.  But I still do not see the
need for political rants as having to be invariant.

So I ask you, Geoff, directly:  Why do I need to accept an invariant that
are of a political nature?

Steve