On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:52:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > > The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the > > > license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of > > > the book's content, but has every reason to be "protected" from > > > modification. These particular words have a value that must be protected. > > > > I'll put you down as being in favor of eternal copyright, then. > > Give me a break. I've never said that, and your suggestion that what I > said implies I believe your suggestion is ... stupid. > > This is exactly the kind of "distraction by misdirection" that I so > greatly detest.
Not at all. Copyright is exactly on point, for it is the only tool with which you are seeking "protection" for the Debian Manifesto. Unless you have a patent, trade secret, or non-disclosure argument up your sleeve. A work that is not copyrighted is in the public domain. Hence my reference to works which *are* in the public domain, and for which there often exist canonical versions despite the absence of government regulation to retain their purity. (Sometimes there is no canonical version to point to, at least not in one's native tongue. What's the "canonical" modern English translation of the _Canterbury Tales_?) -- G. Branden Robinson | "Why do we have to hide from the Debian GNU/Linux | police, Daddy?" [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Because we use vi, son. They use http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | emacs."
pgpnOXqzHbhm4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
