Re: documentation x executable code

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:45:29AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> "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? 

try reading and responding to what i actually wrote, not to your lame
straw-man bullshit.

nothing in the DFSG requires that a free license must allow merging with
an incompatible license.  if it did, GPL software would be non-free as it
does not allow merging with incompatible licenses.

> How would the above differ much from a licence saying "use for
> whatever you want, except genetics"?

because there is no restriction on use.  there is, as always, only a
restriction on re-licensing.  you are comparing chalk and cheese.

> 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:

i specifically said "additional invariant sections in the documentation", and
i implied that that was OK because some things don't matter, some things are
too trivial for sane people to care about.


> I do wonder if craig only ever adds to software, so as not to
> misrepresent the original author by changing or deleting code.

documentation is not software.  software is not documentation.

only a moron thinks that they are the same or that they must be treated
exactly the same.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)