Re: A WDL.
On 2003-09-12 23:16:17 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
It's been brought to my attention, however, that 'opiniated' is a
strange construct in the English language, and that 'opinionated'
would
be better. I'm not a native English speaker;
I am native English, but I think the normal name would be "Opinion
Section" or "Opinion/Editorial Section" to borrow from newspaper
jargon.
The labelling requirements for removed sections seem nasty too,
adding more
unmodifiable parts to the document.
They're just one line. That's a hell of a lot less than an entire "GNU
Manifesto", for shouting out loud.
Still a hell of a lot worse than ideal. It's not clear to my mind
whether a document in Debian containing these unmodifiable sections
would be free software. The only difference between them and FDL
invariant sections is size, isn't it?
I still don't like the labelling requirements (cover texts) but
that's just
a dislike. Embedding them in the unmodifiable licence notice feels
sneaky.
Are they legal notice or really part of the work?
They're part of the work, but they have a special status in the
license.
If they're part of the work, don't they need to be DFSG-free too?
I don't understand "substance and tone" if it is modifiable.
That's literally taken from the FDL.
Sure, I don't expect you to answer for others. I just note it as
something that confuses me.
[Open specification]
I hope this explains what I tried to do there, but I couldn't find a
clear enough wording to use in that paragraph. What an "Opaque" format
is, should be easy: everything which is not Transparent, is Opaque.
OK, maybe some work needs to be done there, but I assume that the
group you mentioned is trying to tighten their wording?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: