Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
>> On May 10, 2004, at 07:16, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Note that content under a "patches only" license will give you much
>> > worse problems when incorporating it (perhaps as examples, or perhaps
>> > pulling documentation from a help menu item) into other documentation.
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:37:49PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> Not really, because we can distribute "compiled" versions of that
>> (which don't have all the sillyness).
> Even if that code includes a class browser and allows introspection into
> its implementation?
>> [BTW: A lot of folks here want to get rid of that clause of the DFSG]
> After the recent experience with "cleaning up the language in the social
> contract", I expect to eventually find out that those folks haven't
> thought things through very far.
That was done under the "Social Contract != DFSG" theory, and it was thought
through very far. :-) The DFSG also deserves some serious cleanup, though
at least it claims to be "guidelines", not a "contract".
There are none so blind as those who will not see.