On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > > the "patch" to the opinions/rants/whatever in an invariant section > > does not change that invariant section (it can't change, it's > > *INVARIANT*). It adds a NEW invariant section which makes whatever > > point the 'patcher' wants to make. the new section may add to or > > clarify the original inv. sec. or it may discredit it or subvert it > > or argue against it. [...] > > That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the > patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers > to add a function that adds to or clarifies or subverts the original > function, but the original must be called regardless and its output > used somehow: it cannot be patched out of any compilation.
"absurd analogy" method. score 2.5 it's not at all like that. documentation is not software. it is non-functional and passive. people read the bits of it that they want/need to read - nobody is forced to read an invariant section if they don't want to. all that the GFDL requires is that it BE THERE, available to be read. the only people who would have any kind of problem with that are plagiarists and thieves who want to steal (or hide) credit for other people's work; and lying scumbags who want to misrepresent and twist someone else's words or just put their own words in other people's mouths. i can see why you zealots have a big problem with the latter - it's one of your favourite tactics. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
