Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in
>> >>much doubt on it
>> >where's the GR and the vote? hasn't happened. where's the policy
>> >decision? doesn't exist.
>> Now you're just being silly:
> 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. some (as in "some, but NOT all") restrictions on modification
> of docs are perfectly reasonable, just as some restrictions on
> modification of software are reasonable (e.g. don't remove any copyright
> notices or changelog history.
> don't steal credit for someone else's work. these ARE restrictions on the
> freedom to modify, but nearly everyone agrees that they are reasonable and
> do not present a problem).
Yes. We accept the same restrictions on documentation as we do on programs.
Go look it up. The complaints are about other restrictions, which we
definitely do not accept on programs.
>> where are the GR for all other licensing decisions? If you want to change
>> how things are done, you probably need to write a GR (or you could just
>> convince nearly everyone, but I can't that happening from such a low
>> base). Until then, the DFSG apply to all software, not just programs.
> and clause 4 applies too, which explicitly allows a
> restriction. errata sheets are "patches" for documentation.
Deletion sheets? Such as "Section 9 is lies, don't read it?" It's an idea,
albeit a very annoying and impractical one. But we aren't granted explicit
permission to make such deletion sheets for GFDL Invariant Sections,
anyway; and that doesn't deal with any of the *other* problems with the
There are none so blind as those who will not see.