FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process
mjr at phonecoop.coop
Fri Feb 24 11:33:25 UTC 2006
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms at 1407.org>
> On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 22:12 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Can you prove he hasn't read it? Then don't claim it so quickly.
> Let's see... he makes direct claims over content of the GFDL of things
> that not only are _not_ there, but also explicitly can't be according to
> the text.
In the part of the message you removed, I explained why I think
certain common dedications (such as to people involved in your
historical connection with the subject) are explicitly allowed
in invariant sections. Therefore, it's not proven any more
than a claim that *you* haven't read the FDL. If one cares
about formal proof enough to use QED, please explain the steps.
Also, I feel accusing someone of reading while on crack cocaine is a
personal attack, even if it was (lame IMO) humour. Would you enjoy
that accusation being made of you? Please consider apologising.
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask
More information about the Discussion