Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:09:55AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > > (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL
> > [...]
> >
> > This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does
> > not hold.
>
> no, it holds perfectly well. the trouble is that nutcases aren't in the
> least bit swayed by reason or logic - they have their own bizarre and
> psychotic mis-interpretation of reality and nothing, NOTHING, is ever
> going to sway them from it.
Ah, ad hominem attacks. Wonderful! Really speaks for your ability to get
your point across.
Of course the argument doesn't hold. Invariant sections cannot be
modified, and DFSG3 requires modifiability. EOT.
[...]
> > It says that you *must* either include a Transparent copy along with
> > each opaque copy (thus, if you print a book, you must include a CD-ROM),
> > or maintain a website (or something similar) for no less than one year
> > after distributing the opaque copy. As written, it is not enough to
> > point the recipient to an available copy that they can take if they want
> > to; you must either include it, or maintain a website.
>
> bullshit! it says nothing of the kind.
>
> as usual, you extremist nutcases have no hesitation about lying if it will
> further your moronic agenda.
I'm not lying. I have an opinion that is different from yours.
> it says that, along with an opaque copy, you must include EITHER a
> transparent copy or state the publicly accessible computer network
> location where the user can obtain a transparent copy. it says NOTHING
> AT ALL that could even remotely be interpreted as saying you must
> operate or maintain that site yourself. all it says is that you have to
> refer users to it.
True.
However, if you point users to a site that is not under your own
control, you basically risk being sued if the person that _does_ control
the site decides to take it down. In a literal interpretation of that
text, you're right; however, for all practical and legal purposes,
you're not.
> and even if it did - so what? it's hardly an onerous or unreasonable
> clause, nor does it in any way restrict freedom.
I disagree, but as it's not my main problem against the FDL, I don't
care either way.
[...]
> i've had enough. i couldn't be bothered going through the rest of
> your post and pointing out the inevitable flaws and idiocies. there's
> no point, anyway - like all extremist nutcases you are fixed in your
> opinion
Ditto.
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
Reply to: