On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 12:28, Joerg Wendland wrote: > The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having > invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a > conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do > not want anybody to change that section, write anything into it that I > do not agree with. The readers of that modified version will think it is > my opinion they are reading thouhg it is not and may be even contrary to > mine. What does that mean? When I am free to say what I want (freedom of > speech, one of our highest goals!) I do want to keep to my words and do > not want anybody to put words in my mouth I would never say. > I disagree with this opinion. Why shouldn't I be able to modify some documentation, and then modify the conclusions that go alongside it? After all, they might be different now. If you're worried about people assuming that the modifications are also your "opinion", then use a licence like the GPL that requires changes to be logged: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. And to use another example, if a political platform written by RMS and distributed in the GNU Emacs manual contains enough useful points; why shouldn't I be able to take it, modify it to fit my needs, then include it in my software? These are the "freedoms" I have for software, I should have the same freedoms for documentation! Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part