Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> > If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
> > allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for him,
> > to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still distribute
> > the unmidified manuals with the Invariant Section in it.
> Didn't we just say we're not making exceptions for things that are
> "sufficiently non-software-like"?
No, we just said that license text are sufficiently non-software-like
to enjoy an exception.
> > Of course both of these limits are
> > judgement calls, and each particular Invariant-But-Removable
> > section will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
> And further, as a practical matter, it's not reasonable for us to be
> making judgement calls on every random piece of documentation that
> gets uploaded.
A packager already has to make a lot of judgement calls when he
packages something. Deciding which parts of the documentation is
relevant and up-to-date to include in the binary package is already
one of them.
--
Henning Makholm "Gå ud i solen eller regnen, smil, køb en ny trøje,
slå en sludder af med købmanden, puds dine støvler. Lev!"
Reply to: