On 31/05/03 18:48 -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > > > A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to > > persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does > > not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say that these cannot > > be modified. > > This is an argument for invariant text, but not for irremovable text. Yes & No. For example, a Free Software author wants to warn user for a specific usage of the software. The classical example is a RFID software that can be used as a tool against privacy. He adds a warning note in the documentation, the text is irremovable but other people can comment on the warning but they can't remove the warning. The (long) debate, as usual, is a matter of terminology. Can we find a solution by having a DFSG for documentation ? The scope of documentation and software seems to not be the same. For the documentation included in the software (in source code), this is software and the DFSG should apply. A software can have two documentation, a built-in and the official 'external' documentation. Just my .02 EUR, adulau -- -- Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) -- http://www.foo.be/ -- http://pgp.ael.be:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x44E6CBCD -- "Knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance -- that we can solve them" Isaac Asimov
Attachment:
pgp7IGjS4pHKB.pgp
Description: PGP signature