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

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:33:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> > bullshit. "freedom", as used by Debian, is explicitly defined in the
> > DFSG. the DFSG has a number of clauses detailing what we consider
> > free and what we don't consider free. convenience is NOT one of those
> > clauses, and never was. in fact, convenience is implicitly discarded as
> > a criteria by the existence of the patch clause, which explicitly states
> > that the major inconvenience of modification-by-patch-only is free.
> Modifiability *is* one of those clauses, and a rule that says "you
> cannot modify this essay" is in violation of that clause.

once again: you *can* modify an invariant section by "patching" it. the
GFDL does not say "you can not modify at all", it says "you can not
delete or change these small secondary sections, but you can add your
own comments to them". no, you can not steal credit for someone else's
work, or gag someone by removing their words, nor can you put your own
words in their mouth. you do have the freedom to add your own words
commenting on theirs.  i.e. modification-by-patch is allowed.

for a document, that is more than adequate. hell, it's good enough for
actual software according to the DFSG.

oh, and once again (because i *KNOW* you'll try to obfuscate the crucial
fact about invariant sections, you do it every time the argument gets to
i.e. specifically *not* the primary topic of the document, either
unrelated to the primary topic or only tangentially-related. e.g. credit
and copyright notices, discussions of the author(s) relationship to the
topic, political rant about the topic, etc.

> But let there be no mistake.  My view (and, I think, Manoj's view), is

manoj's view is part of the problem here. as project secretary, he's
supposed to be impartial. he is obviously failing in that duty.

> Use of the word "bullshit" constitutes a violation of the policy for
> this mailing list.

your offensive presence is a violation of policy, but hey - i'll let
that slide.


craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)

Reply to: