Re: The old DFSG-lemma again...
Branden Robinson <email@example.com> writes:
> I don't object to non-modification of non-functional parts of
> documentation on ideological grounds so much as I do practical and
> operational ones. As I kept saying before, if you open the door for
> this much subjectivity, you invite flamewars between maintainers of
> potential package maintainers and Debian's DFSG gatekeepers. Does the
> FSF have to care about Debian's operational exigencies? No. Should it
> be surprised if its apathy results in Debian having to use a crude tool
> that may impose some collateral damage? Again, I think not.
Ok, I think I understand your position better no. It's not that you
object to such nonmodifiable parts, but you think it will be hard to
give a bright-line test to see whether it's an objectionable case or
not. (And we all certainly agree that there are some objectionable
But I think that I don't see an immediate solution that requires this
kind of flame war. Yes, it *might* happen in a bad way, but it hasn't
really proven too much of a problem so far. The important thing is
whether documentation can be modified; the presence of other bits
(even in the same manual) isn't an obstacle. I think this can be
spelled out in a guideline that is perfectly satisfactory.
Like all of the DFSG, it would require some discretion and practice to
get right, and like the DFSG, there isn't any way to spell it out that
would guarantee no such flame wars.