On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 00:01 +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
You also don't comment my first paragraph about the problems with invariant/dedications.
Dedications can't be Invariants.
Why does FSF have two distinct opinions about the adequate level of freedom for manuals and for software? Because they are different. It is that simple. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
But the 4 freedoms do not change, it does not matter wheter it is software or not.
Oh really? Let's see...
Theory: 4 software freedoms are the same for books
If Theory is true then you can "run" a book for "an purpose" (software freedom 0) since it is a software freedom.
But since you can't "run" books, then you can't exercise one of the four freedoms.
Hence, the 4 software freedoms are not the same for books. Q.E.D.
I do not understand "Q.E.D.". For the other part, if you understand "run" as "read", which I think is quite appropiate, it works.
But "read" is not "run" (freedom 0) but "study" (freedom 1).
I respect you to not want the text you've written be modified, no matter the contents, but then it is NOT FREE.
Passing yourself for me is not allowed by law. So I think your confusing a math text book I write with an invariant section where I say how I can have X or Y levels of orgasm with the theories of a certain researcher.
Rui