Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:01:16PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> That is a non-solution. Telling a lie and then saying, "oops, the
>> above statement is a lie, but a previous author requires me to tell
>> it" will (1) not make the lie go away, (2) help nobody, and (3) make
>> everyone involved look silly. Plus, there may not be space for that
>> much deliberation on the cover.
>
> And calling a statement which is true a lie doesn't do anyone any
> good either.
What the hell?
>
>> > Your hypothetical "factual incorrectness" is purely contextual,
>>
>> Yes. So?
>
> Your entire example is based on taking a statement which is true in one
> context and creating another context where it is incorrect. This works,
> as long as you're not willing to go to the minor effort of fixing the
> second context.
The license makes it IMPOSSIBLE to fix the context.
>> > and it's probably possible to fix the context that the statement is
>> > no longer incorrect.
>>
>> Sure - by not making a derived work at all. 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.
No, it's not. You haven't presented a way to "fix the context".
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: