On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 11:58:14AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:14:22PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:22:11 +0900, Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> said: > > > > [...] > > > GFDL blah, blah,... > > > Invariant section being following comment section in SGML > > > <!-- > > > chapter 1: author1_name name1@isp.dom > > > chapter 2: author2_name name2@isp.dom > > > --> > > [...] > > Hmmm... my example may have been confusing. > > > This cannot be an invariant section as defined by the GFDL, because the > > GFDL says that an invariant section must be a secondary section, and a > > secondary section must be a named appendix. A source comment is not a > > named appendix. > > You are talking "Invariant Sections" (capitalized) in GFDL. I, also > Adeodato Simó I think, use lower case "invariant section(s)" which is > combination of "Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and > Dedications" being "invariant sections" which suffer restriction in GFDL > 4 MODIFICATIONS. Mmmm... I meant: You are talking "Invariant Sections" (capitalized) in GFDL. I, also Adeodato Simó I think, use lower case "invariant section(s)" which is combination of "Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications". The "invariant sections" suffer restriction in GFDL 4 MODIFICATIONS. > > Such a document would have to be licensed under a license other than the > > GFDL. > > That said, I understand the motivation of Osamu's proposal, and I would > > consider invariant comments to be more acceptable than invariant > > portions of the documentation. (Of course, the line again gets a bit > > blurred when you consider documentation generated from the comments.) > > That why we need some space for judgement based on each case. > > > But I don't know whether I would consider it free or not. > > I do not either until I see real case. > > Osamu >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature