Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:25:40AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the
> > > patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers
> > > to add a function that adds to or clarifies or subverts the original
> > > function, but the original must be called regardless and its output
> > > used somehow: it cannot be patched out of any compilation.
> >
> > "absurd analogy" method. score 2.5
> >
> > it's not at all like that.
> >
> > documentation is not software. it is non-functional and passive. [...]
>
> "contradicting the licence you're trying to defend" error. Score 0.
>
> >From the FDL:
>
> "0. PREAMBLE" [yes, this is in the preamble, it's so obvious]
>
> "The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or
> other functional and useful document [...]"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Meanwhile, craig is waffling about how it's non-functional.
get a grip, you loser.
if you don't understand basic english, then go and learn it before
attempting to argue in the language. you're just making a fool of yourself
and wasting everyone's time, otherwise.
it should have been obvious to anyone but the most brain-damaged cretin
that when i used the word "functional" above, i was talking about code
that executes, that actually DOES something. i.e. NOT A PASSIVE DOCUMENT
THAT DOES NOTHING.
The GFDL is using the word "functional" in that context to mean that the
document describes the function of something, such as a program. it does
not mean that the document is in any way active itself.
in other words, different uses of the word "functional", and thus NO
CONTRADICTION, you moron!
you're so lame. don't you have any better criticism of what i wrote than
stupid pedantic mindless shit like that?
try arguing about something worthwhile instead of low-life scumbag
pedantry based on deliberate mis-understanings of plain english.
that's what i hate the most about this stupid GFDL argument - all you
pathetic losers who think it's a good idea to pick and poke at the
tiniest, most trivial, most pointless crap....and you do it as if you're
making some earth-shattering, or at least RELEVANT, point.
> > the only people who would have any kind of problem with that are
> > plagiarists and thieves who want to steal (or hide) credit for other
> > people's work; and lying scumbags who want to misrepresent and twist
> > someone else's words or just put their own words in other people's
> > mouths. i can see why you zealots have a big problem with the latter -
> > it's one of your favourite tactics.
>
> Please read "It's not about misrepresentation" by Nathaneal Nerode.
> http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
read it. it's lame, self-serving garbage with all the usual panic-merchant
absurdly contrived examples and deliberately stupid misinterpretations.
> I'm irritated by mass debaters who are too intolerant to read the
> licence and key articles and understand the objections, far more than
> the foul language.
morons like you deserve "foul" language. there's a tiny chance that it
might shock you out of writing such moronic garbage.
craig
ps: "moronic misunderstanding" method. score: -5.0 (extremely lame).
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: