Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:55:35PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only.
>
> No, it does not.
yes it does.
> Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added:
> > The license may restrict source-code from being distributed
> > in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution
> > of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying
> > the program at build time. THE LICENSE MUST EXPLICITLY PERMIT
> > DISTRIBUTION OF SOFTWARE BUILT FROM MODIFIED SOURCE CODE.
>
> I have looked, and I can find no provisions in the GFDL explicitly
> permitting distribution of software built from modified source code.
the GFDL is applied to documentation, not software. by your loony
literalist interpretation, no documentation can possibly be free because
you can't distribute software built from it.
it's a convenient form of literalism you have there, too. strictly
literal and fundamentalist when it comes to any argument that "proves"
GFDL is non-free, yet superbly fluid and flexible when it comes to
mental contortions such as redefining non-software such as documentation
to be software. difficult trick that, to simultaneously believe that
something is and is not at the same time.
the DFSG is *Guidelines*, not *Rules*. Loony Literal Fundamentalists
need to remember that and take a reality check before commenting.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: