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

Re: documentation x executable code

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:

> "wannabe-Holier-Than-Stallman zealots" is not a rebuttal, it's merely a
> succinct description of the anti-GFDL crowd.

Not agreeing with you does not necessarily make people zealots.  Have
you ever considered that you're a zealot too?  a GFDL zealot...

> invariant sections can be modified by patch.  the DFSG allows that
> restriction.  QED.

So for instance, you'd have nothing against a license that only allowed
"fixing" typos in a program along these lines:

--- helloworld.c.old    2005-01-05 10:44:53 +0200
+++ helloworld.c        2005-01-05 10:45:14 +0200
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 int main(void)
        printf("Hello Wolrd\n");
+       printf("Hello World\n");

        return 0;

Because that's the only kind of "modification by patch" that the GFDL
allows for.

Regards: David Weinehall
 /) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/

Reply to: