Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]
On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 02:27:15PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I think this is indeeed diluting the FHS. As I said, we must
> create our own, rather than adding a rider onto a widely accepted
> standard. It does not matter if we indeed document it.
>
> If we do indeed create such a new standard, I shall move to
> remove any indication that Debian is FHS compliant, because it won't
> be. It shall be comlaint to our own hacked up standard, that no one
> else follows.
If the Debian standard would be a strict superset of the FHS, we would still
be FHS compliant.
> I have strong views about standards compliance, since I have
> been burned too often.
Yes, and this is good. But we all have strong views about free software,
too, and those are conflicting here (are they?).
Remember that we promise our users that the Main distribution is free,
completely. There are already subtle but valid exceptions (copyright
licenses, emails). We have to make a decision where to draw the line.
As you seem to agree that "orig source with patches", "name change" and
"marking changes" is okay, and those are already granted by the dfsg, I
don't know what you are argueing here. Should we also allow further
restricitions than those already allowed by the dfsg? Please name them.
> Adam> I agree, but I don't see why it is *necessarily* a problem if
> Adam> annotated clearly, and if the derivation does not pose as the original
> Adam> in any way.
>
> Do not start down a slippery slope.
This can also be said about our main distribution :)
Thank you,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: