> 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).
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:26:30PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Yes, they'd have to be in a secondary section. That doesn't mean that > there can't be important facts there. True -- that simply provides a contained scope. > > > > [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? The DFSG does not mandate good editorial practice, good coding style or any of a variety of other virtues. > > [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. True. -- Raul
