[Sussex] Distros

[Geoffrey J. Teale]

Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> writes:

> The GFDL is a license, a contract between two parties.  If I understands
> contract law (from reading Groklaw) the a contract lays out clearly what
> is acceptable use by both parties.

Yup.

> The FSF, by continuing to include invariant sections in the current forms,
> is stating that (1) is an acceptable use of their license.  I'm not saying
> that they like it, just that it is acceptable.

Yes.  The reason the ability to create invariant sections is passed
down the chain is to not appear to be unduly forcing material upon
people without giving them the same right to reply.  That is, as I
believe someone pointed out, that you can add an invariant counter
claim to any invariant section.  This is by no means ideal.

> Steve
>
> P.S. Some of the Creative Commons licenses require that credit to the
> original author(s) be given without the need for invariant sections.

Creative commons is less encouraging to publishers of material in a
legal sense because they cannot make an unchangeable statement about
the original intent of the document. 

I do understand the concerns and can see the point your making
entirely.

-- 
Geoff Teale
CMed Technology            -   gteale at cmedresearch.com
Free Software Foundation   -   tealeg at member.fsf.org

/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/