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

Re: A WDL.

On 2003-09-12 23:16:17 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
It's been brought to my attention, however, that 'opiniated' is a
strange construct in the English language, and that 'opinionated' would
be better. I'm not a native English speaker;

I am native English, but I think the normal name would be "Opinion Section" or "Opinion/Editorial Section" to borrow from newspaper jargon.

The labelling requirements for removed sections seem nasty too, adding more unmodifiable parts to the document.
They're just one line. That's a hell of a lot less than an entire "GNU
Manifesto", for shouting out loud.

Still a hell of a lot worse than ideal. It's not clear to my mind whether a document in Debian containing these unmodifiable sections would be free software. The only difference between them and FDL invariant sections is size, isn't it?

I still don't like the labelling requirements (cover texts) but that's just a dislike. Embedding them in the unmodifiable licence notice feels sneaky. Are they legal notice or really part of the work?
They're part of the work, but they have a special status in the license.

If they're part of the work, don't they need to be DFSG-free too?

I don't understand "substance and tone" if it is modifiable.
That's literally taken from the FDL.

Sure, I don't expect you to answer for others. I just note it as something that confuses me.

[Open specification]
I hope this explains what I tried to do there, but I couldn't find a
clear enough wording to use in that paragraph. What an "Opaque" format
is, should be easy: everything which is not Transparent, is Opaque.

OK, maybe some work needs to be done there, but I assume that the group you mentioned is trying to tighten their wording?

MJR/slef     My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Reply to: