Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 14:10:46 -0400, a ecrit: > > > we have participants that clearly do not agree with the GNU projects > > > stance on an issue. > > > > > > This shows the error quite clearly in why having the community > > > deciding philosophical topics of the GNU project is a grave danger. > > > > No, this shows that the philosophy is not that clearly defined: what > > are these invariant sections in the documentation, are they really free > > software? > > Just like software isn't an mammal, it would be wrong to apply what > applies to mammals as it does to software, so making the case that > manuals are software
I typed too fast indeed, scratch "software" to put "documentation" there instead. Software and documentation indeed have different effect on the control you have over the software. > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html That'd rather be https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.en.html which actually talks about invariant sections. Again, I don't think it is the time and place to actually discuss the question I raised above, I just mean that yes, this part is questioning even after reading all of the gnu.org explanations, e.g. if the glibc abortion joke had been in a invariant section. Samuel
