Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?
Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
> Why be obscure when the point mentioned by Stefano is the one applying here ?
It's one point; I'm not sure it's the only point.
> Here, i am not aggreeing with you, aggregating with an empty content
> one liner is not an aggregation, like adding 0 to something don't
> change the value of it.
Ah, but an "empty content one liner" is not empty of content. If it's
one line, then it's one line of content, and it adds .000000001 units
of content, And that's an aggregation.
> If we keep this agreggation requirement, then it must be something
> meaningfull that get aggregated, if not, then we need to word the
> DFSG differently.
Then post an amendment to the DFSG to the appropriate group! This is
not it.
> Then why rely on obscure interpretations, instead of bringing this matter the
> clarity it could have, and clearly state that documentation must be printed
> as is for us to consider it as free. This is what you want anyway, then why
> not say so.
Well, we are saying so as clearly as we can: aggregations must be
permitted, even aggregations which add in only tiny amounts.
> mmm, then wh ynot spell out the DFSG clearly, or at least write a
> DSFG interpretation document or something such which explains our
> interpretation of it, so that other folk can clearly understand what
> we mean by the DFSG.
I don't think this is really that hard; it's the plain meaning, and
it's how it has always been understood and applied. I'm sorry you
don't know this, but I'm explaining it to you now, so you now know
it. I'm happy to explain it to as many people as necessary.
If you think adding it to the DFSG would be a help, the propose such
an amendment (in the proper place) instead of here!
If you think a DSFS interpretation document would be useful, then
write one!
Thomas
Reply to: