[License-discuss] Invariant manifestos as an approach to expressing values / beliefs / missions for open source projects

[Thorsten Glaser]

Roland Turner via License-discuss dixit:

> would/should it be an acceptable condition in an OSI-approved license that an
> unmodified project manifesto be included in any copy of the software? This

Stopping right here: no.

We already had this with GNU “F”DL’s invariant sections.

Consider this: people make mugs with shortcuts of their favourite
editors all the time. It is useful to derive these of the official
software (for the sake of this argument, let’s ignore the code vs.
documentation distinction; increasingly often either is generated
from the other anyway). For most editors, this is possible. For
GNU Emacs you’d need a barrel, not a mug (not only because of its
complexity) because you’d have to print the GFDL text and the GNU
manifesto and whatever Stallmann propaganda du jour there is.

So, no, invariant sections are not acceptable in any way.

More examples:

Reuse of code snippets in a (similarily licenced) project would
mean they’d have to also copy the (totally irrelevant) manifesto
of the other project. (If badly written, *this* could then lead
people to think it also applies to the receiving project, or worse.)

Manifestos that become outdated.

Manifestos that include content deemed indistributable in certain
legislations.

Manifestos that are part of the source code, which implement
backdoors or digital restriction management (DRM).

We can come up with more examples…

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence.		-- Coywolf Qi Hunt