[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC

On 2004-04-17 01:21:59 +0100 Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:

no, it's the loony extremists who want to throw out good software just because they don't have carte-blanche to modify the documentation that are being silly.

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 modification-by-patch-only
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/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Reply to: