My apologies, there were some inaccuracies in my initial reply, and it was more dismissive than it should have been.
"Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 06/08/07, Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml > > http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 > > The position statement and the vote all conflate invariant sections > with cover texts and dedications as if exactly the same arguments > against invariant sections applied to a cover text like "a gnu > manual". That's because the same arguments do apply. All works in Debian must meet the DFSG; a work licensed such that any of it is unmodifiable fails to meet DFSG §3. Any work licensed under terms of FDL-plus-unmodifiable-sections thus fails the DFSG. > Why are three words enough to make thousands upon thousands of words > nonfree? when any part of a work is unmodifiable under the license terms, it fails the DFSG. Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please read the list archives on these topics; they were discussed > extensively around the time of the GR to which Manoj referred you. My mistake; it was Evan who referred you to existing documents. Those documents cover the issues you're raising; there's nothing I've said in the above that isn't already addressed by the documents Evan pointed you to. -- \ "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best | `\ way to predict the future is to invent it." -- Alan Kay | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
