On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Craig Sanders wrote:
> whether you call it commentary or a patch, it's still a patch and is
> explicitly allowed by the DFSG.
The section of the DFSG to which you are refering is the following:
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of
"patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying
the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit
distribution of software built from modified source code.
The license must allow:
1) the distribution of "patch files" for the purpose of modifying
the work at build time
2) the modified form built from the patched work to be
distributed
These conditions are not satisfiable for GFDLed documentation with
invariant sections.
Furthermore, even if we were to ignore the requirement of DFSG 4 for
the distribution of software built from modified source code, the
"patch file"[1] would include bits of the original source as context,
which is also not allowed for the invariant sections of a GFDLed
work.[2]
Don Armstrong
1: Obviously alluding to a patch(1) (or similar) style patch file that
can be applied in an automated fashion, as opposed to mere commentary.
2: Fair use concerns enter in here, of course, but they are not
sufficient remedy because many jurisdictions to not possess them.
--
I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like
to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a
better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to
'em.
-- The Best of Will Rogers
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature