Re: documentation x executable code
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:46:56PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:38:31PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > (similarly, you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only
> > do so by adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply
> > adds to the invariant section. i.e. you can make whatever comments
> > you like about it, but you can't censor the original words. in other
> > words, modification only by patch - which is explicitly allowed by
> > the DFSG)
>
> What you describe isn't modification by patch, it's modification by
> commentary, and you can do that even without any permissions granted
> at all by the copyright holder.
i'm sorry, i thought i was conversing with a reasonably intelligent adult and
not with a child who needs every term precisely defined so as to remove all
possibility of ambiguity. if i was wrong, please let me know and i'll adjust
my writing accordingly. maybe i should footnote every word to let you know
exactly which dictionary defintion i'm using in any given context.
the word "patch" isn't restricted to the output of diff(1), or the controlling
input to patch(1).
whether you call it commentary or a patch, it's still a patch and is
explicitly allowed by the DFSG.
(there are other definitions of patch that apply, but the most obvious is "v:
repair by adding pieces". see "dict patch" for others)
> > we do have a choice, even if it's one we don't like or one that
> > doesn't leave us with a very useful system. we don't have to
> > distribute GPL licensed software, there are many other free software
> > licenses to choose from.
>
> I'm not aware of any licence texts which provide explicit permission
> to modify the licence text itself. Can you give some examples?
you're missing the point.
it doesn't matter whether any others allow it or not. the point is that the
GPL doesn't. if others don't then they fail the DFSG too, and have to be
removed (according to the moronic zealot path to Holier-Than-Stallmanness,
that is).
if we make an exception for the GPL (and other license texts) then why not for
other non-license texts? if we do make an exception, then when and where was
this discussed and decided (or voted) upon? and when & where was it decided
that the exception was exclusively for licenses? what are the exact limits of
the exception?
(a brief mention in passing in some vaguely related thread doesn't count as a
decision)
> > GFDL docs *are* free, except in the minds of
> > wannabe-Holier-Than-Stallman zealots, and even they can't come up
> > with any *credible* arguments why it should be considered non-free.
> > the best they can do is come up with
>
> Can you give a reasoned rebuttal of Manoj's GFDL position statement?
again?
> Preferably without use of the words "wannabe" and "zealot".
why? they're very appropriate words to use in this discussion.
> > non-free, and debian has not yet voted on the issue. claiming that
> > the GFDL is non-free is not a statement of fact, it is merely a
> > statement of opinion.
>
> An opinon which you're working very hard not to actually argue
> against, but merely shout into the ground.
bullshit. i've argued against it consistently. nobody has yet come up with
anything that refutes what i have argued. the most i've got in response is
lame re-iterations of the same absurd hypothetical scenarios - as if they're
some kind of compelling proof.
it's you zealots who claim that GFDL is non-free, therefore the onus is on you
to prove your claim.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: