Re: documentation x executable code

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

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

I didn't understand what you wrote, so I questioned its meaning. What
do *you* do when you don't understand? Oh yeah, you flame and swear a
lot, trying to suggest that the person you don't understand is stupid.

> 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.

Thanks for the re-expression. I think you are claiming that every FDL
instance could be incompatible with examples of every other licence, even
other FDL instances, and that's not a DFSG-related problem. Yes, I agree.

I don't think that was the point being made, though. One problem with
the FDL is that an invariant section limits the uses of derived works,
which I think might be a problem meeting DFSG 6. Invariant sections
themselves are not a problem unique to the FDL, but this effect on the
editable part of the work isn't something I've seen before.

> 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.

So, do you think you are arguing about something you don't care about,
or are you insane?

> > 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.

Documentation can be software and software can be documentation.

Only a politician tries to boil two subset relationships down to simple
equivalence.  No-one is arguing that the two sets are identical, as far
as I know, so it's a true-but-misleading claim.

-- 
MJR/slef