Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?
Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
> Does an empty one liner really adds something to the information contained in
> the said documentation ?
There is no such thing as an "empty one liner". If it's empty, then
it's not one line, it's zero. A one liner adds something more than
.0000000001 units of content, which is *not* empty.
> Also notice that changing the spaces and such of a source code is not
> considered a modification, altough it adds/removes things, and the resulting
> patch is by no means empty (unless you specify the right options to diff,
> that is.
Right, that's why my suggested interrogatory to O'Reilly is about the
addition of a single page of text--*not* zero pages.
> I have no time for it right now, but maybe i will do. The problem
> with this is that you need to be sure that all, ort at least a big
> enough majority of debian developper agree with your current
> interpretation.
So the problem with my understanding is that you are in the vast
minority? I think that is rather a problem with *yours*.
> > Well, we are saying so as clearly as we can: aggregations must be
> > permitted, even aggregations which add in only tiny amounts.
>
> You are saying, but not the DFSG, this is the central point
> here. and altough you have, by the fact that you represent
> debian-legal, a strong power on these decision, you by no mean
> represent a majority of debian developpers.
The aggregation clause (sigh, once again) does not say anything about
the size of the aggregation, and thus includes even very small ones.
If you think a majority of Debian developers are in favor of non free
documentation, then bring that up SOMEWHERE ELSE, NOT HERE.
> Again, see my other mail on this, the fact that we have a huge thread on this
> alone shows that this is not plain meaning.
It's not a huge thread--it's just you. You, and nobody else but you.
Boo boo, pa doo.
Reply to: