Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG

[MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>]

Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the
> > patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers
> > to add a function that adds to or clarifies or subverts the original
> > function, but the original must be called regardless and its output
> > used somehow: it cannot be patched out of any compilation.
> 
> "absurd analogy" method. score 2.5
> 
> it's not at all like that.
> 
> documentation is not software. it is non-functional and passive. [...]

"contradicting the licence you're trying to defend" error. Score 0.

>From the FDL:

"0. PREAMBLE" [yes, this is in the preamble, it's so obvious]

"The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or
other functional and useful document [...]"
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Meanwhile, craig is waffling about how it's non-functional.

Please read the licence before defending it. Just because
FSF wrote it doesn't make it a free software licence, sadly.

> the only people who would have any kind of problem with that are
> plagiarists and thieves who want to steal (or hide) credit for other
> people's work; and lying scumbags who want to misrepresent and twist
> someone else's words or just put their own words in other people's
> mouths. i can see why you zealots have a big problem with the latter -
> it's one of your favourite tactics.

Please read "It's not about misrepresentation" by Nathaneal Nerode.
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html

I'm irritated by mass debaters who are too intolerant to read
the licence and key articles and understand the objections,
far more than the foul language.

-- 
MJR/slef
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/