On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:45:29AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > "craig" wrote: > > > >(b) This prevents the documents from being adapted for another > > > >purpose (suchas documenting ways of funding free software). > > regardless of how admirable a trait this is, it is not a requirement of the > > DFSG, and never has been. [...] > > Has craig just walked off the map by allowing restrictions on the > intended purposes of derived works?
try reading and responding to what i actually wrote, not to your lame straw-man bullshit. nothing in the DFSG requires that a free license must allow merging with an incompatible license. if it did, GPL software would be non-free as it does not allow merging with incompatible licenses. > How would the above differ much from a licence saying "use for > whatever you want, except genetics"? because there is no restriction on use. there is, as always, only a restriction on re-licensing. you are comparing chalk and cheese. > Later in the same message, craig also seems to accept that invariant > sections in programs are also OK, as long as it's not the main code > or help, but maybe I misinterpreted: i specifically said "additional invariant sections in the documentation", and i implied that that was OK because some things don't matter, some things are too trivial for sane people to care about. > I do wonder if craig only ever adds to software, so as not to > misrepresent the original author by changing or deleting code. documentation is not software. software is not documentation. only a moron thinks that they are the same or that they must be treated exactly the same. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]