Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Henning Glawe <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:52:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > a 'patch' in the first run is also an extension to the original source;
>> > only an interpreter (in most cases, /usr/bin/patch) makes a 'change' from it.
>> Right, but the point is that the binary does not include the relevant
>> bits at all. By contrast, the GFDL requires that the "binary package"
>> continue to have the invariant section in its entirety.
> but it does not tell things like 'you shall not add anything that
> contradicts the invariant section', so you can always change the
> _meaning_ of the document by adding things like 'section FOO is
Of course, but that doesn't solve the problems. The point of allowing
the patch-only licenses is that they still leave us the freedom to
ship essentially whatever we like in the binary package. This is not
true of an append-only license.