craig wrote: > try reading and responding to what i actually wrote, not to your lame > straw-man bullshit.
I didn't understand what you wrote, so I questioned its meaning. What do *you* do when you don't understand? Oh yeah, you flame and swear a lot, trying to suggest that the person you don't understand is stupid. > 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. Thanks for the re-expression. I think you are claiming that every FDL instance could be incompatible with examples of every other licence, even other FDL instances, and that's not a DFSG-related problem. Yes, I agree. I don't think that was the point being made, though. One problem with the FDL is that an invariant section limits the uses of derived works, which I think might be a problem meeting DFSG 6. Invariant sections themselves are not a problem unique to the FDL, but this effect on the editable part of the work isn't something I've seen before. > 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. So, do you think you are arguing about something you don't care about, or are you insane? > > 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. Documentation can be software and software can be documentation. Only a politician tries to boil two subset relationships down to simple equivalence. No-one is arguing that the two sets are identical, as far as I know, so it's a true-but-misleading claim. -- MJR/slef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]