Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Why should a dedication of a manual deserve different restrictions than one of a computer program?
Because a dedication isn't a computer program? A computer program thrives on being modified. A dedication doesn't.
And a dedication is not a manual. A manual thrives on being modified. I don't see anything in your statement to justify why a dedication of a manual should deserve different restrictions than one of a computer program.
Can you explain why you need the right to modify my poem about dragons?
I don't. I said so. The way I suggested (e.g., GPL for the main work, and CC by-nd for the dedication) wouldn't give that right either. Why do you keep arguing uncontroversial points?
And why I shouldn't be allowed to attach it to a manual?
Who said you shouldn't be allowed to? I didn't. But why should someone who reuses parts of the manual not be allowed to detach your poem again?
Technical differences don't really apply in most cases. An invariant part could be included in most kinds of programs without hindering their normal performance, such as being shown by a particular option or menu item, or even on a startup screen (that a user who doesn't want to read it can click through, just like a manual reader(*) can skip over the pages with the invariant sections).
Alas, a menu item or a startup screen changes the _behaviour_ of the program, and you should always be allowed to change the behaviour of the program.
Are you aware that clause 2c) of the GPL also restricts changing the behaviour of the program? Sure, in a very specific way, I'm aware of that, and we don't need to argue about it. But according to your statement that "you should *always* be allowed to change the behaviour of the program" (my emphasis), the GPL doesn't satisfy your requirements either. If you didn't mean your statement in such an absolute way, please state it the way you mean it.
Secondly, the question whether someone should be allowed to modify your expression (or your "thoughts", as you prefer to call it), is beside the point. Even a GPL work can be accompanied by an unmodifiable text (GPL, paragraph 2, last sentence).
I think you are misreading that paragraph. It is about aggregation, and not putting specific bits into a GPLed work. I.e. you can put GPLed software and non-free software on the same CD, but you cannot combine those two into one work.
So it's a different work then, what's the problem? If you have a GPL program with FDL software in one package, these are also two works (in the legal meaning of the term, as described, e.g., in GPL paragraph 0).
- In the FDL case, the invariant sections are tied to the main part.
They aren't tied to the main part, infact, they cannot be tied to the main part in anyway or form.
Are you arguing about the meaning of the word "tie", or what are you trying to say? Fact is that in many circumstances, you cannot reuse parts of the main part of a FDL work without copying the invariant sections. (You don't deny this fact, do you? It's the heart of the FDL.) I called this "to tie". I could back this up with some dictonary quotes, but I really don't care. If you don't like this word, you can suggest another term. It doesn't change anything about my original argument.
You can't reuse parts of the latter without including the former. In the GPL+x case, you can. That's IMHO the main difference, so I'd like to know why you think having to include them is a good thing.
Having an "invariant section" in a program, makes it impossible to modify it so that it does something you want (say that it has a GUI, and you wish to remove this GUI and make it into a library, if the GUI splash screen was an `invariant section', then you would never be allowed to do this). I think we can agree on this.
You mention a case of turning a program into a different form. A valid scenario, indeed.
Having an invariant section in a manual, doesn't cause the same dilema. You can still modify the technical content of the manual so that it is synced with the program. And still be able to make an manual that you can use.
So let's also here consider a case of turning a (FDL) manual into a different form, to have a fair comparison. Examples such as reference cards or posters have been given. If, e.g., the invariant sections are longer than the physical space on a reference part permits, then you would never be allowed to do this according to the FDL. (And while I'm not a lawyer, I'm quite sure that citation or fair use rights don't cover this case, if the copied material makes up the major part of the new work.)
Frank