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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

> On May 9, 2004, at 13:40, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
> >
> > How so?
> >
> > [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
> > (which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).

On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:26:30PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Yes, they'd have to be in a secondary section. That doesn't mean that 
> there can't be important facts there.

True -- that simply provides a contained scope.

> >
> > [B] Nothing in the GFDL prohibits us from adding additional context or
> > content to make the facts (or differing points of view) clear.
> No, but good editorial practice does. We shouldn't be having pages of 
> invariant sections saying "actually, FOO is now true". That makes 
> documents hard to read.
> Should we get a new invariant section every time the FSF changes its 
> address?

The DFSG does not mandate good editorial practice, good coding style or
any of a variety of other virtues.

> > [C] If the inaccuracies are, in fact, fraud, then the license terms
> > can't legally require that they be repeated.
> No, instead, the situation would likely be we couldn't distribute the 
> document at all.



Reply to: