Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
Craig Sanders <email@example.com> writes:
> once again: you *can* modify an invariant section by "patching" it. the
> GFDL does not say "you can not modify at all", it says "you can not
> delete or change these small secondary sections, but you can add your
> own comments to them".
A patched version of the manual, which omits the invariant section,
cannot be distributed.
> no, you can not steal credit for someone else's
> work, or gag someone by removing their words, nor can you put your own
> words in their mouth. you do have the freedom to add your own words
> commenting on theirs. i.e. modification-by-patch is allowed.
This is true, but it is irrelevant. The DFSG does not only say that I
can add my words to the original; it requires that the license
preserve my ability to modify it.
Of course, the license can require attributions of credit and notice
that a change was made; the GPL requires these and causes no
> for a document, that is more than adequate. hell, it's good enough for
> actual software according to the DFSG.
It doesn't matter whether it's adequate in your opinion; the DFSG
> oh, and once again (because i *KNOW* you'll try to obfuscate the crucial
> fact about invariant sections, you do it every time the argument gets to
> this point) - AN INVARIANT SECTION CAN *ONLY* BE A SECONDARY SECTION.
That's certainly true; nobody has challenged that.
However, the DFSG does not just say that the primary parts of the work
need to be modifiable; it says that the whole thing must be.
>> Use of the word "bullshit" constitutes a violation of the policy for
>> this mailing list.
> your offensive presence is a violation of policy, but hey - i'll let
> that slide.
Whether my presence is a violation of policy is irrelevant to the
question of your use of the word "bullshit".