On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:30:27 +0400 olive wrote:
> There are in fact two things in these manuals. The technical part
> which is in my opinion free and the small invariant political stuff.
> My argument was that I just don't read and care about these small
> political stuff that we are obliged to attach to the manuals. Anyway,
> your problem seems exagerate. You can of course write an essay about
> GCC founding and you can include it in the manual; you just have to
> keep the original version and maybe explaining to the users that the
> original version reflect the opinion of RMS and the new section
> reflect yours.
Suppose that an implementation of mv(1) has a bug such that the -i
(--interactive) command-line option is broken.
Suppose the license of this implementation of mv(1) is such that you are
not permitted to fix the behavior of "mv -i". But you are allowed to add
code to implement another option (--really-interactive, for instance)
that actually works as intended. But you cannot remove the code that
implements "mv -i".
Would that mv(1) implementation be DFSG-free?
Obviously it would not, I should say.
How can a manual with a GFDL-style Invariant Section comply with the
DFSG?
Political essays can be as important as the technical part of a manual:
they should grant the same freedoms that are essential for programs and
all other works of authorship.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpC4yQF584du.pgp
Description: PGP signature