Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill (was Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?)
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:57 +1100, Craig Sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>>> the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an
>>> internet address containing the full document.
>> Please show me where the GFDL has such a provision. The passage that
> i've shown it before. i have no interest in playing your time-wasting
> game. go read the archives.
You made the assertion that it was sufficient to just include a link to
the full document (including invariant sections) or to just the
invariant sections here:
Thomas Bushnell disagreed with this:
and you tried to justify your assertion by quoting the GFDL:
This is the only post since the GR was presented that I am aware of
where you (or anyone else for that matter) tried to defend that position
by quoting the GFDL.
pointed out that the portion of the GFDL that you quoted is only an
exemption from having to provide a transparent copy along with the
text. It cannot be used as an exemption from having to include the
I do not see any reply to either my or Thomas' posts, and I am not aware
of any other post on this issue that quotes from the GFDL. So as it
stands, as I see it, there has been no proof presented from the GFDL
that allows you to remove the invariant sections from a document and
just include a link to the originals.
Hubert Chan <email@example.com> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.