Raul Miller Wrote > On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: >> The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies. > > How so? > > [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section > (which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
Some of the inaccuracies I recall from the last GFDL debate included the address of the FSF in the GNU Emacs manual's Invariant sections, if the FSF moves. Also, most of the GNU manuals available at http://www.gnu.org/manual/manual.html declare the GPL v2 as an invariant section, which, once the GPLv3 is applicable to those software projects, should really be updated. (For the works licensed under GPL2 or later) Debian (or anyone other than the copyright holder (FSF)) can not incorporate even minor corrections. > > [B] Nothing in the GFDL prohibits us from adding additional context or > content to make the facts (or differing points of view) clear. While not forbidding additional invariant sections, the only way to "clarify" inaccuracies in a GFDL invariant section is to add additional invariant sections, which leads to an unacceptable bloat of A-said B-said competing invariant sections. > > [C] If the inaccuracies are, in fact, fraud, then the license terms > can't legally require that they be repeated. But the license forbids distribution of _ANY_ derivative work without the invariant sections, which under the "fraud" assumption in [C] means that the entire, useful manual can not be distributed. (Or even just one particular chapter of the manual that documents the command line switches for the program.) --Joe