Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <maor@ece.utexas.edu> writes:
Guy> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
>> 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.
Guy> If standards can't be modified, how can they be improved? I think
Guy> there is gain in allowing standards to be modified. Modified
Guy> standards must be distributed with a prominent notice that this is not
Guy> the original standard and that the original standard may be obtained
Guy> from wherever.
Standards are modified by the standards body, not by any tom
dick, or harry that comes along. How would things be if Debiian
modifies the FHS, and so does Red Hat, and caldera an so. We all have
our own FHS, and now none of the distributions are using compatible
file layouts.
Like MS embracing java, and then extending it, and essentially
breaking the write once, run anywhere promise of the standard.
A plethora of almost same bug subtly different "standards"
dilutes the presence of the standard, and in my opinion, hurts the
software community wirse than proprietary, non free software does. It
divides us, and lowers the efficacy of the stnadardizing effort.
>> 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).
Guy> This is tricky. If I convert your document to print on my size of
Guy> paper, or if I make your ASCII document into HTML isn't that ok?
For some documents (graphics novels, no, standards, yes). If
it is an ascii document, and is a technical one, then reformatting or
changing the rpesentation method maybe irrelevant.
Guy> Translations should be encouraged also. Maybe "Translations and
Guy> reformatting must be allowed with the stipulation that there is no
Guy> loss of information." That might be too vague though.
There is always a loss of information when translation
occurs.
>> The problem lies with Derived works. (Would I like a derived
>> work of the ANSI C Standard? Sounds like what MS does)
Guy> Why not? If I want to propose a new keyword in ANSI C and distribute
Guy> a document called Guy's modified ANSI C, shouldn't I be allowed to?
I would not like that to happen. Standards are made to enhance
conformity, and allow entities to rely on external elements, secure
in the belief that everything folllows a standard. Dilute that, and
we all descend into chaos.
Allowing this to happen is, in my opinion, as detrimental to
our community as proprietary software.
manoj
--
If you think before you speak the other guy gets his joke in first.
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
Reply to: