Joel Baker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > (frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
> > > distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
> > Um, isn't that precisely what we're talking about?
> After all, to tie threads... all Invariant Sections in a GDFL work
> are secondary, by definition (and, frankly, usually by practice) -
> if the FSF doesn't want to allow their removal, much less
> modification, why should we assume that Joe Random Author who
> explicitly puts a protective license on it is actually fine with it
> being removed, but not modified?
I don't think there is any debate about whether non-removable material
of any sort is okay: it is not. We give it a pass when it is
license-related, like patent-grant letters containing anti-GPL flames,
but at some point I imagine we'd draw the line even there. Also
unmodifiable software including interfaces or documentation: not okay,
The whole idea of "snippets" was that by definition they are
removable. Basically, I was trying to express a bit formally the
kinds of material which we've never worried about or had problems with
in the past. The kinds of materials which I *think* you meant when
you wrote "I'd be fine with ..."?