On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:21:09AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > That danger always exists, but it can't be happening here in regard to > invariant sections, because they are not a change. We've been using > invariant sections in our manuals since at least 15 years ago. On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:40:38PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > >It's not just a continuation of the status quo that is taking place > >here. The FSF has adopted an expansionist policy with respect to > >Invariant Sections. > > The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to > cast the FSF's actions in a harsh light. I think that the only such > statements deserve is to point out that fact. The FSF *has* added Invariant Sections to manuals that previously did not have any, such as, as I have already pointed out and you as you elided from your reply, the GDB Manual. I do not undersand how "expansion" is not an accurate description of that practice. The practice is deliberate and consistent, therefore it as least plausible to characterize it as a "policy". When one applies the adjectival form of "expansion" to the noun "policy", one gets "expansionist policy". If you wish to rebut the term on its denotational basis, I'd be delighted to hear it. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from speculating as to what you think my "desires" might be if you are not going to address the substative point at issue. That point being, that a mere preservation of the pre-GNU FDL status quo is not what is in evidence from the FSF's actions with respect to documentation. If a mere preservation of the pre-GNU FDL status quo were all that the FSF desired, it would not need to: 1) encourage others to use the GNU FDL; 2) draft a documentation license for use by others that had a facility for "Invariant Sections", for which there is no counterpart in the GNU GPL; 3) apply the GNU FDL to manuals that did not previously have invariant sections; 4) increase the amount of material identified as "invariant sections" in existing manuals. The FSF has done all of the above. There is more than a conservative preservation of the status quo at work. Therefore, arguments relying upon how the FSF's recent actions are "not a change" and how it's been using invariant sections in some of its manuals "since at least 15 years ago" fail to adequately explain the new things the FSF is doing. -- G. Branden Robinson | Intellectual property is neither Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property. branden@debian.org | Discuss. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman
Attachment:
pgpgDbGP6vCG9.pgp
Description: PGP signature