Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Do you think we already have the right to modify invariant text in
>> the GFDL?
>
> Yes I do.
> I can rewrite any idea expressed in any text, invariant or not.
rewrite != modify
> (I cannot rewrite any idea behind a software until I get access to
> the sources. If I don't, it's only mimetism.)
I looked up the word 'mimetism' since I'd not heard it before, and
it's evidently the same as 'mimicry'[1]. Unfortunately, that doesn't
help me to understand what you mean. If you're happy to force people
to rewrite the emacs documentation, why aren't you happy to force
people to rewrite emacs?
[1] In fact, that's precisely how it was defined:
% dict mimetism
1 definition found
>From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Mimetism \Mim"e*tism\, n. [From Gr. ? to mimic.] (Biol.)
Same as {Mimicry}.
>> My only point is that the analogy between books (which may or may
>> not be free, depending on their license) and works under the GFDL
>> is fundamentally flawed.
>
> But apparently you missed the fact that works under the GFDL
> possibly can be edited as book.
If you're rewriting it it's not appropriate to talk about editing it,
as that involves making modifications to a pre-existing work.
Regardless, books generally aren't under the GFDL -- which, after all,
is the license we're talking about.
I find it truly astonishing that you think it's just as easy to
rewrite an entire document as it is to fix a typo in that document.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
