On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: > 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. Doesn't the GNU FDL invite confusion of the issue by sanctioning the inclusion of, and mandating the retention of, what should objectively be non-documentary functions of written works? The scopes of documentation *per se* and software seems to me to be complementary. The GNU FDL's Invariant Sections are supposed to be used only for Secondary Sections, which are not supposed to serve any documentary function. In fact, they're supposed to be irrelevant from a strictly topical perspective. "A Secondary Section...contains nothing that could fall directly within [the] overall subject."[1] Even if Debian had Free Documentation Guidelines, it's likely that (some of) the GNU Manuals would continue to fail them, because what RMS and the FSF want to protect with Invariant Sections isn't documention. [1] GNU FDL version 1.2, section 1 -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | kernel panic -- causal failure branden@debian.org | universe will now reboot http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpcyB_xqGgPy.pgp
Description: PGP signature