[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 04:38 PM, Dylan Thurston wrote:

Actually, I'm a little unclear on the latter point.

Yes, it is at least DFSG 3 that I and many others believe invariant sections violate.

  To what extent
are non-functional restrictions OK for Debian?  For instance, the
GPL's clause 2c (message at an interactive prompt) is uncontroversial,

Yes, only because the disclaimer of warranty and copyright notice are legally required for various things; also, note that those are not invariant, you can change the wording, appearance, etc.

but the much longer message that the reiserfs utilities printed seemed
to be more questionable

Mainly because it made the program unusable for people without huge scrollback.

(if it were required by the license,

Then it would be way more than legally required, and thus I think it'd be a problem.

Or is the
question whether the restrictions in the GFDL are truly

Functional vs. non-fuctional changes are not mentioned anywhere in the DFSG. I think there are some border cases where invariant sections can become functional, such as where the scope of the document significantly changes, but that is not my biggest objection.

Reply to: