Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:01:16PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: >> That is a non-solution. Telling a lie and then saying, "oops, the >> above statement is a lie, but a previous author requires me to tell >> it" will (1) not make the lie go away, (2) help nobody, and (3) make >> everyone involved look silly. Plus, there may not be space for that >> much deliberation on the cover. > > And calling a statement which is true a lie doesn't do anyone any > good either. What the hell?
> >> > Your hypothetical "factual incorrectness" is purely contextual, >> >> Yes. So? > > Your entire example is based on taking a statement which is true in one > context and creating another context where it is incorrect. This works, > as long as you're not willing to go to the minor effort of fixing the > second context. The license makes it IMPOSSIBLE to fix the context. >> > and it's probably possible to fix the context that the statement is >> > no longer incorrect. >> >> Sure - by not making a derived work at all. That is the only way to >> avoid putting the cover text in a context where it is not literally >> false. > > And this, my friend, is an example of a lie. No, it's not. You haven't presented a way to "fix the context". -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
