craig > the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of > convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free. > > case in point - it is inconvenient (for both the distributor and the > user) to distribute modified software in the form of original work + > patch file. very inconvenient. in fact, a complete PITA, especially for > the user. yet that is explicitly defined as being free in the DFSG.
Even in that case, the used copy of the work usually has the patched-out part missing. I don't think the patch permission is relevant to the FDL, because most Invariant Section advertisers would be unhappy if their advert is not visible in an opaque copy. Not least FSF: would an invisible GNU manifesto satisfy their goal? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
