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

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 <cas@taz.net.au> 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.

Both I:
and Thomas:
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
invariant sections.

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 <hubert@uhoreg.ca> - 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.

Reply to: