On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 17:17:41, Dale E. Martin wrote: > > it doesn't matter whether these things are specifically forbiden by a > > license or not, because they are either unethical or illegal or both, > > anyway. > > Exactly, hence invariants seem unnecessary. They also feel non-free to me > but I'm still listening to the debate. > > > claiming that the GFDL is non-free doesn't make it so. if you make a > > claim, the onus is on you to prove it. > > You keep claiming invariants (and the other issues which seem to be > considered secondary) are necessary for documentation even though they > don't seem to be for source code. The onus is on you to defend this > position in this debate. (Bonus points for doing it without calling anyone > names.) If you've already explained this elsewhere a link or cut and paste > is fine with me. > > > we already allow invariant sections in software (particularly software > > license texts and copyright notices etc) so it's not as if this is some > > amazingly new and unprecedented exception just for the GFDL - it's a > > practical necessity to enable us to do our work of producing and > > distributing a free software distribution. > > Copyright notices are a special case. Where else are there invariants? > There's the "practical necessity" assertion again. Why is it necessary? >
I can't see any good reason for a discussion of politics, or anything else that might be marked "invariant", to be put in a software manual. The GNU Manifesto, while it may or may not be an important document, has no reason that I can see for being part of the Emacs manual. Software manuals are (as far as I am aware) for technical documentation, not political debate. -- -Benjamin A'Lee Termisoc Secretary: http://www.termisoc.org/ Home Page: http://benalee.co.uk/ Public Key: BEC9DC1A Don't read everything you believe.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
