FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process
mjr at phonecoop.coop
Fri Feb 10 19:05:29 UTC 2006
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams at gnu.org>
> Sorry for being unclear, I meant that a manual isn't in its whole a
> functional work, and can contain non-functional parts, like an
> > Note that it claims the FDL purpose is for functional work.
> ... with non-functional parts.
Were that true, then the FDL preamble would be an argument that the
FDL is not suitable for applying to invariant sections.
> > Because such restrictions make sense, you don't need the right to
> > modify my thoughts about why I wrote the book, or to whom I
> > dedicated the book. [...]
> Someone modifying your essay should not modify your thoughts!
> Please consult a mental health expert if you find it does!
> Please consult a English teacher.
You first. It does make a difference whether we are seeking to
modify your essay or your thoughts. (I'm a native English-speaker,
with some problems, but illiteracy is not one of them TTBOMK.)
> [... more flame bait ...]
> Are you really incapable of having a leavel headed discussion without
> resorting to these kind of silly arguments?
I think a level-headed discussion is impossible if you are going to
contradict the licence you claim to support. Please stick to the FDL.
More information about the Discussion