Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 05:13:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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.
only indirectly. the real point, which you missed, was to be an accurate
description of reality - something that, as an extremist nutcase, you
are challenged by.
> Of course the argument doesn't hold. Invariant sections cannot be
> modified, and DFSG3 requires modifiability. EOT.
bullshit.
as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, there are several
other situations where neither the DFSG nor the debian project require
modifiability - license texts and copyright notices, for example.
you and your ilk may choose to ignore this as a minor detail and pretend
that it's irrelevent and no kind of precedent, but that's because
you're extremist nutcases highly skilled at ignoring reality when it
contradicts your lunatic viewpoint. it doesn't actually change the
reality. wishing it weren't so don't make it so.
> > > 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.
no, you're lying. you are stating something which is not true, and
that you know is not true. the GFDL does not say what you are claiming
it does, it does not even imply what you are claiming, yet you claim
it anyway because it's a useful shock tactic to demonize the GFDL and
support your argument.
> > 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 if a meteorite falls on your head, you can no longer give away
copies of GPL source code for binaries you have distributed. since
this could happen at any time, you're constantly at risk of being in
violation of the GPL.
GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST!
really! who the hell are you trying to fool? yourself? nobody else is
going to be taken in by such a lame "risk".
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: