On May 9, 2004, at 13:40, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
How so?
[A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
(which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
Yes, they'd have to be in a secondary section. That doesn't mean that
there can't be important facts there.
[B] Nothing in the GFDL prohibits us from adding additional context or
content to make the facts (or differing points of view) clear.
No, but good editorial practice does. We shouldn't be having pages of
invariant sections saying "actually, FOO is now true". That makes
documents hard to read.
Should we get a new invariant section every time the FSF changes its
address?
[C] If the inaccuracies are, in fact, fraud, then the license terms
can't legally require that they be repeated.
No, instead, the situation would likely be we couldn't distribute the
document at all.
