On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:38:31PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > (similarly, you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only do so by > adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply adds to the invariant > section. i.e. you can make whatever comments you like about it, but you can't > censor the original words. in other words, modification only by patch - which > is explicitly allowed by the DFSG) What you describe isn't modification by patch, it's modification by commentary, and you can do that even without any permissions granted at all by the copyright holder. > we do have a choice, even if it's one we don't like or one that doesn't leave > us with a very useful system. we don't have to distribute GPL licensed > software, there are many other free software licenses to choose from. I'm not aware of any licence texts which provide explicit permission to modify the licence text itself. Can you give some examples? > GFDL docs *are* free, except in the minds of wannabe-Holier-Than-Stallman > zealots, and even they can't come up with any *credible* arguments why it > should be considered non-free. the best they can do is come up with Can you give a reasoned rebuttal of Manoj's GFDL position statement? Preferably without use of the words "wannabe" and "zealot". > non-free, and debian has not yet voted on the issue. claiming that the GFDL > is non-free is not a statement of fact, it is merely a statement of opinion. An opinon which you're working very hard not to actually argue against, but merely shout into the ground. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature