Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

[Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <sloyment@gmx.net>]

Hi Thomas!

On Sunday, 2. December 2001 04:05, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I thought there was general agreement that a proportional
> limit was better than a simple number.  One disadvantage to a
> simple per-package limit is that you can defeat it by
> splitting something up into more packages.  A proportional
> limit seems more sensible to me.

If you split the Emacs Manual into two pieces, each of them will 
carry the whole invariant section. But generally, you are right. 
If the author himself wants to exploit this rule, he can do it 
this way. BTW: You could also circumvent a proportional limit by 
increasing the non-invariant part with garbage text.

I consider the proposal dangerous, because it leads to the 
assumption that invariant stuff is free, if accomplished with 
enough modifiable stuff. I can't agree on that.

Bye,
Thomas
 }:o{#