Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:23:10 +0100, Henning Glawe <glaweh@debian.org> said:
> 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). (sorry, couldn't
> resist ;) )
Another difference is that a patch modifies the file before it is
shipped to the interpreter/compiler, whereas an addendum to an invariant
section is meant to be sent to the interpreter/compiler along with the
original unmodified source.
Unless you have a separate process in your brain that scans the
document, applies the addenda, and then ships the result to the rest of
your brain...
(P.S. How did this discussion end up in -devel? It isn't "Discussion
about technical development topics.")
--
Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
Reply to: