Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On 2004-04-17 01:21:59 +0100 Craig Sanders <email@example.com> wrote:
no, it's the loony extremists who want to throw out good software
they don't have carte-blanche to modify the documentation that are
For the definition: loony, adj - disagreeing with Craig.
For one, I'm not arguing for no restrictions on modifications of docs.
Just the same as we require for other software. I ignore the next bit
of your message, irrelevant to me.
and clause 4 applies too, which explicitly allows a
restriction. errata sheets are "patches" for documentation.
The licence must explicitly permit distribution of software built from
modified sources, so we must be allowed to integrate errata into the
"built" version of the docs during the making of the .deb.
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ firstname.lastname@example.org
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/