Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and > > > distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still). > > > Um, isn't that precisely what we're talking about? > > After all, to tie threads... all Invariant Sections in a GDFL work > are secondary, by definition (and, frankly, usually by practice) - > if the FSF doesn't want to allow their removal, much less > modification, why should we assume that Joe Random Author who > explicitly puts a protective license on it is actually fine with it > being removed, but not modified?
I don't think there is any debate about whether non-removable material of any sort is okay: it is not. We give it a pass when it is license-related, like patent-grant letters containing anti-GPL flames, but at some point I imagine we'd draw the line even there. Also unmodifiable software including interfaces or documentation: not okay, obviously. The whole idea of "snippets" was that by definition they are removable. Basically, I was trying to express a bit formally the kinds of material which we've never worried about or had problems with in the past. The kinds of materials which I *think* you meant when you wrote "I'd be fine with ..."?
