Re: documentation x executable code

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

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:13:51AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:43:43AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > The license must allow:
> > > 
> > >     1) the distribution of "patch files" for the purpose of modifying
> > >        the work at build time
> > > 
> > >     2) the modified form built from the patched work to be
> > >        distributed
> > > 
> > > These conditions are not satisfiable for GFDLed documentation with
> > > invariant sections.
> > 
> > i can take a GFDL document with an invariant section, add another
> > section which argues against, subverts, or just supplements the
> > invariant section, AND i can distribute the result as either a new
> > source tarball with Makefile or build-script etc or as a complete
> > formatted manual (electronic or printed or whatever).
> 
> The GFDL allows one to make additions to the work, but not to make
> subtractions or modifications to the section that is invariant
> itself.

for software (and for the primary subject matter of a document), that would
NOT be good enough - because it affects the functioning of the software.

(and in any case, code can't be "invariant" because it can not be "secondary",
it is inherently the subject matter of the licensed work).

for secondary material describing the relationship or ethical stance of the
authors to the subject matter of the documentation[1], it is good enough.  you
can agree or disagree with the authors, you can write a counter-rant or a
supporting rant, or add whatever you want but you can not censor or change
what they said.


[1] i.e. the *ONLY* things that are allowed to be invariant under the GFDL.


craig

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