Re: Anton's amendment
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:40:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Yavor Doganov <yavor@doganov.org> writes:
>>
>> > This is not a proper example. Non-modifiability of secondary.c may
>> > obstruct further improvements of the program. This is not the case
>> > with the invariant sections, which do not prevent the manual to be
>> > enhanced.
>>
>> Sometimes an enhancement requires removing invariant sections. For
>> example, if you want to turn the manual into a reference card.
>
> so make your reference card and include a link to the FSF's site for the
> full documentation. one link hardly even qualifies as inconvenient.
Links do not satisfy the requirement of the GFDL that invariant
sections always being included.
This is a respone to what Yavor Doganov had said, which is that all
enhancements are still possible even with invariant sections.
Instead, this particular "convenience" issue does, in fact, prevent
that particular sort of enhancement.
>> Sometimes an enhancement requires rewriting invariant sections. For
>> example, to correct factual mistakes or express more correct opinions.
>
> no, you do not put words in other people's mouths.
Certainly, any change to the manual should clearly indicate both
credit and the changes you made. No problem there; this is already
required by the GPL and I don't object to a similar requirement for
documentation. "This is based on an essay by RMS, but it has been
modified by John Smith and does not necessarily represent RMS's
opinions."
Thomas
Reply to: