Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:24:17AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are
> > imposed by copyright law more than by licences. Even the licences
> > which can be modified (such as the GPL), can't be modified if you
> > wish downstream recipients to exercise the permissions.
>
> you lot just never give it a rest, do you?
Debunking your lies? Nope. Doesn't it just gut you?
> the same old bullshit and lies over and over and over again.
Nice of you to admit you're just reheating year-old crap.
Here, I'll save the trouble of one post/debunk cycle:
"you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only do so
by adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply adds
to the invariant section." (Craig Sanders, January 2005)
vs
"If it is modified, it does not do its job." (RMS, May 2003)
and so on and so forth. Even RMS's comments disagree with
some pro-FDL Craig Sanders ones. Why should people believe
Craig Sanders saying "this is free software" when even
RMS doesn't do that AFAICT?
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask
Reply to: