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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

> > And calling a statement which is true a lie doesn't do anyone any
> > good either.

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:22:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> The statement is NOT TRUE!

It's interesting that you profess that your low tolerence for ambiguity
makes your position correct.

> > Your entire example is based on taking a statement which is true in one
> > context and creating another context where it is incorrect.
> Yes. That is exactly the point. The license requires me to repeat the
> statement in a context where it is not true.

And that context is your responsibility.  And you can easily create a
slight variation on the context which doesn't have this quality.

> > This works, as long as you're not willing to go to the minor effort
> > of fixing the second context.
> Your "minor effort" means not doing the derivation at all. You are
> welcome to claim that this is "minor", but I doubt that very many
> would agree.

That's not my claim.  You can provide some additional context indicating
the temporal nature of the claim and your beliefs about the situation.

> > > That is the only way to avoid putting the cover text in a context
> > > where it is not literally false.
> > And this, my friend, is an example of a lie.
> Rubbish. The only context in which thne statement is not literally
> false is the original context. Therefore the only way to avoid making
> the statement into a lie is not th modify the context at all.

Here's another example of how this sentence that bothers you so much
can be made to be true: send the FSF $1 dollar for their permission to
print the book.

I maintain that this example is not necessary, that there are plenty of
other ways of dealing with the issue.  However, I also claim that this
example is sufficient to show that your "the only way" statement is false.


Reply to: