Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
> On May 9, 2004, at 13:40, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
> >
> > How so?
> >
> > [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
> > (which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:26:30PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Yes, they'd have to be in a secondary section. That doesn't mean that
> there can't be important facts there.
True -- that simply provides a contained scope.
> >
> > [B] Nothing in the GFDL prohibits us from adding additional context or
> > content to make the facts (or differing points of view) clear.
>
> No, but good editorial practice does. We shouldn't be having pages of
> invariant sections saying "actually, FOO is now true". That makes
> documents hard to read.
>
> Should we get a new invariant section every time the FSF changes its
> address?
The DFSG does not mandate good editorial practice, good coding style or
any of a variety of other virtues.
> > [C] If the inaccuracies are, in fact, fraud, then the license terms
> > can't legally require that they be repeated.
>
> No, instead, the situation would likely be we couldn't distribute the
> document at all.
True.
--
Raul
Reply to: