Re: documentation x executable code
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 08:05:57PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:54:38AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > "wannabe-Holier-Than-Stallman zealots" is not a rebuttal, it's merely a
> > > succinct description of the anti-GFDL crowd.
> > Not agreeing with you does not necessarily make people zealots.
> i never said it did.
> being insanely pedantic & obsessive about licensing trivialities does,
> however, make one a zealot.
Indeed. But not everyone agrees with your opinion that invariant sections
> > Because that's the only kind of "modification by patch" that the GFDL
> > allows for.
> "patch" is not restricted to the controlling input to patch(1) - or
> to any particular program or method.
Nor did I say so, I was using a simple comparision. But you artfully
dodged the real question, so I'll repeat it in rephrased form, without
mentioning of the word patch:
"Would you accept a license that only allowed fixing typos (for instance)
in a program by *also* outputting the fixed line of text?"
Because this is *exactly* the situation you get with invariant sections.
Sure, you can add another invariant section that fixes all the "bugs" in
the original version, but that still leaves the buggy version in the
Regards: David Weinehall
/) David Weinehall <email@example.com> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/