Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]
Hi,
I think I agree with parts of this, as far as they go, as long
as it pertains to *technical documentation* of software, in which
case, if I am permitted to modify the code, I can see why I should be
permitted to modify the documentation to describe the changes in
behaviour. So, I can see why one would want documentation for a DFSG
free program to be also DFSG free.
However, I do not think that standards documents (and
possibly other categories [personal opinions come to mind]) benefit
from being modifiable. In fact, making a modifiable document a
standard undermines the validity and acceptance of the standard,
since one never knows what one is agreeing to.
Other issues of concern: Translations, and re-ormatting into a
a different presentation format or conversion into a different
encoding (for some documents the layout and presentation maybe very
important).
If we are looking to reuse the DFSG, I think items 1 (Free
Redistribution) and 4-9 are perfectly fine; I even think that 2
(asking for source code -- preffered form of the document for
modification) is OK.
The problem lies with Derived works. (Would I like a derived
work of the ANSI C Standard? Sounds like what MS does)
manoj
--
This sentence contradicts itself -- no actually it doesn't. Douglas
Hofstadter
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: