Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 03:09:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > 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?
ah, of course. this time you're using the "lie by juxtaposing two
unrelated things out of context and pretend as if they are directly
relayed to each other" method. nice choice, one of your better methods
- reasonably subtle and very effective if the reader isn't paying close
attention. score: 6.5 out of 10.
1. what i said was an analogy to the DFSG clause that allows a license
to require that modification be done only by patch. adding a new
invariant section is to documentation what a patch is to software.
2. wihout any context, i don't know what the hell RMS was commenting on,
but it certainly wasn't anything i said. it was nearly two years prior
to my words.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: