Craig Sanders wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: >> On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: >> >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in >> >>much doubt on it >> >where's the GR and the vote? hasn't happened. where's the policy >> >decision? doesn't exist. >> >> Now you're just being silly: > > no, it's the loony extremists who want to throw out good software just > because they don't have carte-blanche to modify the documentation that are > being silly. some (as in "some, but NOT all") restrictions on modification > of docs are perfectly reasonable, just as some restrictions on > modification of software are reasonable (e.g. don't remove any copyright > notices or changelog history. > don't steal credit for someone else's work. these ARE restrictions on the > freedom to modify, but nearly everyone agrees that they are reasonable and > do not present a problem).
Yes. We accept the same restrictions on documentation as we do on programs. Go look it up. The complaints are about other restrictions, which we definitely do not accept on programs. >> where are the GR for all other licensing decisions? If you want to change >> how things are done, you probably need to write a GR (or you could just >> convince nearly everyone, but I can't that happening from such a low >> base). Until then, the DFSG apply to all software, not just programs. > > and clause 4 applies too, which explicitly allows a > modification-by-patch-only > restriction. errata sheets are "patches" for documentation. Deletion sheets? Such as "Section 9 is lies, don't read it?" It's an idea, albeit a very annoying and impractical one. But we aren't granted explicit permission to make such deletion sheets for GFDL Invariant Sections, anyway; and that doesn't deal with any of the *other* problems with the GFDL, either. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
