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

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:

> 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". 

A patched version of the manual, which omits the invariant section,
cannot be distributed.  

> 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.

This is true, but it is irrelevant.  The DFSG does not only say that I
can add my words to the original; it requires that the license
preserve my ability to modify it.

Of course, the license can require attributions of credit and notice
that a change was made; the GPL requires these and causes no

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

It doesn't matter whether it's adequate in your opinion; the DFSG
demands modifiability.

> 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

That's certainly true; nobody has challenged that.

However, the DFSG does not just say that the primary parts of the work
need to be modifiable; it says that the whole thing must be.

>> 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.

Whether my presence is a violation of policy is irrelevant to the
question of your use of the word "bullshit".


Reply to: