Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Braakman <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 06:47:31PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > When you look at which kind of text IS marked invariant in the manuals
> > > under discussion, you'll find that the FSF has a much broader idea of
> > > Secondary Sections than the one you're using in your arguments.
> > Can you be more specific? An example perhaps?
> I gave you one: the Distribution section of the Emacs manual. That's
> what I was quoting from. Emacs 21.3+1-3, to be precise.
Ok, so for this "distribution section", I agree, it should not be
invariant as it is almost "technical" (how do I get more
information...), and the point of view of RMS about that would be
Not a native english speaker: