Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill (was Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?)
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:06:09 +1100, Craig Sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> You made the assertion that it was sufficient to just include a link
>> to the full document (including invariant sections) or to just the
>> invariant sections here:
> yes, and it was an appropriate comment for the context in which it was
But it was a comment that was later shown to be false (or, at least, has
not yet been backed up).
>> [ blah blah blah]
>> pointed out that the portion of the GFDL that you quoted is only an
>> exemption from having to provide a transparent copy along with the
>> text. It cannot be used as an exemption from having to include the
>> invariant sections.
> you're either getting confused or deliberately trying to confuse the
> i've never said that having to include invariant sections is a problem
> that can be worked around - in fact, i've explicitly stated on
> numerous occasions that it is not even a problem at all. at least, not
> a problem with any freedom implications - it is a mere convenience
> issue, not a freedom issue.
Did I say anything at all about freedom issues in my last message? The
only thing that I said was that you claimed that the GFDL allowed people
to replace an invariant section with a link to a network location that
contained the full document, and I said that this claim has not yet been
backed up by a suitable quote from the GFDL. Stop trying to change the
topic. Either show where the GFDL gives permission to replace an
invariant section with a link, or stop claiming that it gives that
permission. That is all I am saying.
I'm sorry if my lack of subtlety is confusing.
Hubert Chan <email@example.com> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.