Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > once again: you *can* modify an invariant section by "patching" it. the > GFDL does not say "you can not modify at all", it says "you can not > delete or change these small secondary sections, but you can add your > own comments to them".
A patched version of the manual, which omits the invariant section, cannot be distributed. > no, you can not steal credit for someone else's > work, or gag someone by removing their words, nor can you put your own > words in their mouth. you do have the freedom to add your own words > commenting on theirs. i.e. modification-by-patch is allowed. This is true, but it is irrelevant. The DFSG does not only say that I can add my words to the original; it requires that the license preserve my ability to modify it. Of course, the license can require attributions of credit and notice that a change was made; the GPL requires these and causes no problem. > for a document, that is more than adequate. hell, it's good enough for > actual software according to the DFSG. It doesn't matter whether it's adequate in your opinion; the DFSG demands modifiability. > oh, and once again (because i *KNOW* you'll try to obfuscate the crucial > fact about invariant sections, you do it every time the argument gets to > this point) - AN INVARIANT SECTION CAN *ONLY* BE A SECONDARY SECTION. That's certainly true; nobody has challenged that. However, the DFSG does not just say that the primary parts of the work need to be modifiable; it says that the whole thing must be. >> Use of the word "bullshit" constitutes a violation of the policy for >> this mailing list. > > your offensive presence is a violation of policy, but hey - i'll let > that slide. Whether my presence is a violation of policy is irrelevant to the question of your use of the word "bullshit". Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]