Henning Glawe <email@example.com> 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.
Description: PGP signature