Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit "John H. Robinson, IV" <jaqque@debian.org>

> as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are missing
> is a clear working definition to separate out Software, Data, and
> Documentation.

> once we do that to our own satisfaction, then we can get on with
> defining the free-ness needs of each.

I think most regular posters to d-l sees it the other way: As long as
nobody have made any reasoned concrete proposal for how the standards
applied to documentation should differ from the DFSG, it is a waste of
time it to try to hammer out a definition of "documentation".

There seems to be a fairly solid consensus on this list that the
requirements of the DFSG are, in and of themselves, the reasonable
requirements to make of the licensing of documentation - *even* on
the times we have conducted the discusion on the (for some
hypothetical) premise that there is no inherent reason for software
and documentation to be measured with identical standards.

If someone wants to change that consensus, that someone should strive
directly to change the consensus about which demands it is reasonable
to make for documentation. But it seems that the people who, every
once and then, come here to demand that GDFL-licensed manuals should
be included, are content to argue that the standards for documentation
*could* be different. They do not say anything about which way they
want to *change* the standards (expect possibly to make an artificual
exception saying that everything that comes from the FSF is free by
definition).

-- 
Henning Makholm                "De kan rejse hid og did i verden nok så flot
                                 Og er helt fortrolig med alverdens militær"