> > And calling a statement which is true a lie doesn't do anyone any > > good either.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:22:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > The statement is NOT TRUE! It's interesting that you profess that your low tolerence for ambiguity makes your position correct. > > Your entire example is based on taking a statement which is true in one > > context and creating another context where it is incorrect. > > Yes. That is exactly the point. The license requires me to repeat the > statement in a context where it is not true. And that context is your responsibility. And you can easily create a slight variation on the context which doesn't have this quality. > > This works, as long as you're not willing to go to the minor effort > > of fixing the second context. > > Your "minor effort" means not doing the derivation at all. You are > welcome to claim that this is "minor", but I doubt that very many > would agree. That's not my claim. You can provide some additional context indicating the temporal nature of the claim and your beliefs about the situation. > > > 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. > > Rubbish. The only context in which thne statement is not literally > false is the original context. Therefore the only way to avoid making > the statement into a lie is not th modify the context at all. Here's another example of how this sentence that bothers you so much can be made to be true: send the FSF $1 dollar for their permission to print the book. I maintain that this example is not necessary, that there are plenty of other ways of dealing with the issue. However, I also claim that this example is sufficient to show that your "the only way" statement is false. -- Raul