Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
- From: Craig Sanders <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:43:52 +1100
- Message-id: <20060204234352.GN9046@taz.net.au>
- In-reply-to: <20060124232427.GD11083@country.grep.be>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060124131326.GG13476@debian.inet> <email@example.com> <20060124142423.GJ13476@debian.inet> <20060124232427.GD11083@country.grep.be>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 12:24:27AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:24:23PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > > An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and
> > > backside of a sheet of paper (autogenerated to always match the current
> > > version) that contains the most important commands, functions or
> > > whatever of the software that the manual documents. For example a cheat
> > > sheet for GNU Emacs.
> > It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on
> > the second sheet and FSF wins more popularity. :-)
alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation
(containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant sections.
for FSF documentation, linking to the relevant URL on the FSF's own site
should do - that's not going to vanish any time soon (if ever). and that
will probably account for almost all GFDL documentation since hardly
anyone else is likely to use it.
and, amazingly, that works for even the stupid coffee-cup example
that you loonies seem so obsessed with as if it somehow proves your
> That doubles the amount of text you have to print. If you want to print
> 10.000 copies, this is a serious burden.
> Also, I doubt that two sheets will be enough, as the GFDL is fairly
> large and will, in most cases, not fit easily on one piece of paper.
> And what will you do with front-cover and back-cover texts in such a
these are convenience issues, not freedom issues.
on the one hand: fair enough, you've got a right to whinge about
on the other hand: bullshit! you don't have a right to falsely claim
that convenience issues are freedom issues.
craig sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org> (part time cyborg)