On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:58:52PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > This really just isn't a problem that needs fixing. Once in a while, you get > confused or desperate people on d-legal trying to argue "we allow license > texts to be unmodifiable, so this invariant ode to my cat should be allowed, > too!", but you can't stop those stupid arguments by changing the DFSG. You > just end up replacing one dumb argument with another, equally dumb argument, > and complicate the guidelines in the process.
just one thought: we have programs in main, where derived works are only allowed as original source+patches (TeX comes to my mind...) couldn't it be basically the same thing with GFDL documents? if there is an invariant section with an 'ode to my cat', why can't we add a section to the document telling the 'ode to my cat' is bloody stupid. this would be in some sense equivalent to a patch, only the interpreter is not the computer but the human brain (which is the target architecture for documentation anyways). (sorry, couldn't resist ;) ) -- c u henning
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
