Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:1286 comp.sources.d:5688
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: The Official Word on Citations in FSF Works
Message-ID: <3058@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 23 Jul 90 22:43:01 GMT
References: <1990Jul3.111026.19698@twinsun.com> <3014@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1990Jul18.145521.11726@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1990Jul18.211712.27198@ico.isc.com>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 31

In article <1990Jul18.211712.27198@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>> No, removing the reference is editing.
>
>Censorship is a type of editing.

Yes.  However, note that the message you are replying to was an
answer to

   If I recall correctly, the book was cited in the original draft.
   Therefore removing it is indeed censorship.

And indeed merely removing does not constitute censorship.

>                                  Specifically, it is editing to remove
>that which is in some way--esp. morally--objectionable (as contrasted with
>things removed because they are irrelevant, incorrect, etc.).

No.  When the military censors letters home to remove information
that might be useful to the enemy, this is not because the information
is objectionable, unless you take objectionable so widely that I find
it hard to see how you would exclude such grounds as irrelevance.

But you don't need to show that removing the citation was censorship
to show it was wrong.  Indeed, if the only grounds for saying it was
wrong are that it is (supposedly) consorship, then I'm not impressed.
Surely the issue is whether the AWK book was used in the preparation
of the gawk manual in a way that requires citation or not.

(BTW, I reply to the suggestion that it suffices if the AWK book
was used in the development of the gawk *program* in another message.
So I haven't forgotten this point.)