Re: documentation x executable code

[MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>]

"craig" wrote:
> > >(b) This prevents the documents from being adapted for another
> > >purpose (suchas documenting ways of funding free software).
> regardless of how admirable a trait this is, it is not a requirement of the
> DFSG, and never has been. [...]

Has craig just walked off the map by allowing restrictions on the
intended purposes of derived works? How would the above differ much
from a licence saying "use for whatever you want, except genetics"?

Later in the same message, craig also seems to accept that invariant
sections in programs are also OK, as long as it's not the main code
or help, but maybe I misinterpreted:

> "literate programming" and other related kinds of self-documenting code are
> far more software than documentation and require a free software license
> rather than a free documentation license.
> 
> even then, i couldn't care less if such a program had additional invariant
> sections in the documentation as long as the code and the primary
> documentation itself was free.  some things just don't matter.

Then, there followed another attempt at proof by assertion and insult.
To disprove, I state that I am not demanding the right to plagiarise or
misrepresent. Of course, I'm not a zealot either, so probably I wasn't
being referenced there.

I do wonder if craig only ever adds to software, so as not to
misrepresent the original author by changing or deleting code.
I can think of some software that might explain!

-- 
MJR/slef