Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the F DL
Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> If I have one piece of prose that I like, I usually do not have all
> the prose I need/want. The same goes for documentation or music. In
> fact hearing some piece of music usually motivates me to get more.
Huh? Invariant sections never give you more documentation. The GFDL
says "contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall
subject". The text of the GNU Manifesto doesn't help you satisfy your
need for more documentation.
> So the patterns of distribution of software are mutually exclusive,
> whereas the distribution patterns of works of art are mutually
> supportive.
>
> And unlike most works of art -- for which aesthetics or philosophical
> advancement is the use -- software derives its usefulness almost
> exclusively from its function.
Are you really saying that the primary use of documentation is aesthetics
or philosophical advancement? Remember, it's the GNU Free Documentation
License we're talking about, not the GNU Free Novel License. The GNU
Manifesto doesn't further the purpose of the GNU Emacs manual--to tell
me how to use Emacs--at all. Due to the above quoted text, no invariant
section can ever further the fundamental purpose of documention: to
document.
All I see is the BSD advertising clause again: it furthers the cause of
the original author (putting the programmer's name in print, or getting
GNU's philosophy in print), and has practical problems. Furthering the
cause of the original author is bearable, but the practical problems are
not.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: