On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:37:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> A. Only copyright statements themselves can be invariant.
> B. Only copyright statements and associated licenses can be invariant.
> C. Only Copyright statements, licenses, giving-credit-where-
> credit-is-due, and no-warranty requirements can be invariant.
I invite you to show anyone who's argued that some of A, B and C are okay,
but not all of them.
> D. Small amounts of text can be invariant if they are not
> documentary. (A "documentary" text is one which needs to change
> if the associated software changes.)
> E. Small amounts of text of any kind can be invariant.
> F. Any amount of text of any kind can be invariant.
Further, I invite you to look back over my debian-doc suggestion and note
that it doesn't conform to any of your options above.
I also dispute your handwaving to declare that Branden's interpretation
("everything in main must be DFSG-free") is untenable, and that
implication that modifying them in the way that everyone does is
hypocritical.
In short, I don't think your summary here is particularly good.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
"Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Attachment:
pgpY8IhD4rvlN.pgp
Description: PGP signature