Henning Glawe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:52:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> > a 'patch' in the first run is also an extension to the original source; >> > only an interpreter (in most cases, /usr/bin/patch) makes a 'change' from >> > it. >> >> Right, but the point is that the binary does not include the relevant >> bits at all. By contrast, the GFDL requires that the "binary package" >> continue to have the invariant section in its entirety. > > but it does not tell things like 'you shall not add anything that > contradicts the invariant section', so you can always change the > _meaning_ of the document by adding things like 'section FOO is > bullshit'.
Of course, but that doesn't solve the problems. The point of allowing the patch-only licenses is that they still leave us the freedom to ship essentially whatever we like in the binary package. This is not true of an append-only license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
