Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]
On Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 12:02:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
>
> >> I have strong views about standards compliance, since I have
> >> been burned too often.
>
> Marcus> Yes, and this is good. But we all have strong views about
> Marcus> free software, too, and those are conflicting here (are
> Marcus> they?).
>
> I think not. I think the DFSG has been designed for software;
> and there is a reason for wanting free software -- when we start
> talking about Books and novels and graphic novels and standards and
> opinions, I think the old criterion (and certainly the reasons for
> the old criterion) do not fit anymore.
Now you are confusing two issues. A book or a novel is quite different from
a technical standard. Please let's talk about different things seperately.
I recorded that you think that the "old criterion" does not fit for standards,
me and other people don't feel so. I think there are reasons for both point
of views, but you should be prepared to bring more reasons in the discussion
than "standards mustn't be subverted".
In my opinion, the license is the wrong place to force the acceptance of a
standard. A standard should be convincing by technical means.
> I seem to see people having a knee jerk reaction about this --
> we strongly advocate the DFSG for software, so it must be good for
> everything else -- but I think if you examine *why* we advocate free
> software, and what that says about community building, that the same
> conditions do not apply here.
I think I provided some reasons why they still apply in my original post,
and other pointed out even more.
Could you go back please and pick up specific points?
> Marcus> Remember that we promise our users that the Main distribution
> Marcus> is free, completely. There are already subtle but valid
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Marcus> exceptions (copyright licenses, emails). We have to make a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Marcus> decision where to draw the line.
>
> So, we are going to throw out the GPL and the artistic licence
> from the distribution? I think that would be extremely silly.
Yes, this is getting silly. Please READ what I wrote, otherwise I can't help
you. (It is quoted above for your reference, I marked the relevant sentence).
> Marcus> As you seem to agree that "orig source with patches", "name
> Marcus> change" and "marking changes" is okay, and those are already
> Marcus> granted by the dfsg, I don't know what you are argueing
> Marcus> here. Should we also allow further restricitions than those
> Marcus> already allowed by the dfsg? Please name them.
>
> I think we are not yet rready to name them. I have pointed out
> a few cases where the DFSG may be too limited because it was designed
> to cover software issues. If we are trying to define acceptable
> document licences, I think we may have to rethink the issues
> involved.
This is not helping very much. Remember, being professional means staying close
to the subject. The subject is to discuss what exceptions are to be allowed, and I
posted a long mail (it is put on the web, too, under
master.debian.org/~brinkmd/frre_doc/index.html), where I think I summarized
most of the valid exceptions.
If you think the DFSG is not acceptable for all *technical documents*,
please specify which technical documentation should be subject to special
considerations and why.
Also, you never answered me my questions what documents you consider as
"standards" (have we a good way to decide the question "Is this document a
standard?").
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: