Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Fedor Zuev said:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>>Fedor Zuev <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes
>>> It almost certainly affect the normal use of program and
>>> will be unacceptable because of this, not because of mere existence
>>> of such code.
>>How does ls --hangman bringing up a hangman program affect the
>>normal use of the program more then a large manifesto affect the
>>normal use of the manual?
> 1) It should be compilable with any compiler used for
> compilation of ls.
If this is a reason to reject the invariant --hangman option for ls as
non-free, then this is a reason to reject invariant (untranslatable)
sections of documents as non-free.