Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Admittedly, many of the others are due to confusion on the part of
all the examples you've posted so far have been examples of either slackness,
indecision, or stupidity, not deliberate deception as you first claimed.
but that isn't anywhere as outrage-inducing, is it? so you can't just admit
that you exaggerated wildly.
> maintainers who think (presumably because of the nonsense puffed out
> over the years) that the DFSG doesn't apply to documentation.
as i pointed out in my last message, the jury is still out on this
topic. it has not been decided, so it is dishonest of you to pretend
that it has been.
> | as for RFCs and other documentation, the jury is still out on whether they can
> | be included in main. no final decision has been made. you shouldn't pre-empt
> | that decision by declaring them to be an attempt to sneak non-free stuff in
> | main. for years (since the start of Debian), they HAVE been considered free
> | enough to go in main.
> AJ Towns actually referred me to a thread from 1999 in which Joey Hess
> disagreed strongly....
who died and made Joey God? his opinion is not law, it is just an opinion.
see also comments above re: jury still being out WRT DFSG & documentation.
> | it's only the loony exteremists who have been trying to kick out GNU
> | documentation in the last few years to make a stupid point (and,
> | presumably, to prove that they are Holier Than Stallman).
>
> Nope, it's not to 'make a stupid point'. There are straightforward,
> practical reasons for concluding that they are non-free (and
> furthermore a pain in the neck). I came to this originally because the
> GCC manual contains an Invariant Section which is really inaccurate
> for GCC ("Funding Free Software", which is rather obsolete, and
> describes some theoretical funding method totally different from that
> actually used to pay for GCC) -- and it can't be changed.
<yawn>
hardly anyone actually cares. those that do have reasonable (to non-loony
people, that is) work-arounds, like attaching an errata or addendum page.
this is even explicitly supported by clause 4 of the DFSG, where it is stated
that it is acceptable (but definitely not preferred) to require redistribution
of modified versions to take the form of original + patch. i see no valid
reason why that should not apply to Documentation as well as to source code
(if it doesn't apply to docs, then neither does the rest of the DFSG)
> | please don't. it's boring.
>
> Obviously not to you, or you wouldn't keep replying. ;-)
stupidity and lies have to be challenged, otherwise their is a danger that they
become accepted as fact.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
Reply to: