[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

Henning Glawe <glaweh@debian.org> writes:

> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:58:52PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> This really just isn't a problem that needs fixing.  Once in a while, you get
>> confused or desperate people on d-legal trying to argue "we allow license
>> texts to be unmodifiable, so this invariant ode to my cat should be allowed,
>> too!", but you can't stop those stupid arguments by changing the DFSG.  You
>> just end up replacing one dumb argument with another, equally dumb argument,
>> and complicate the guidelines in the process.
> just one thought: we have programs in main, where derived works are
> only allowed as original source+patches (TeX comes to my mind...)
> couldn't it be basically the same thing with GFDL documents? if
> there is an invariant section with an 'ode to my cat', why can't we
> add a section to the document telling the 'ode to my cat' is bloody
> stupid. this would be in some sense equivalent to a patch, only the
> interpreter is not the computer but the human brain (which is the
> target architecture for documentation anyways).

It's not equivalent.  A patch /changes/ the original to give you
something new, whereas adding additional material merely /extends/;
it's not hard to see long-term maintenance problems with this.  See
the debian-vote archives for more detail.

Roger Leigh
                Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
                Debian GNU/Linux        http://www.debian.org/
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.

Attachment: pgpTQi24xo9ri.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: