Re: Copyright from the lcs-projekt!? [dwarf@polaris.net: Re: First cut at testing and validation]
On Thu, Aug 13, 1998 at 12:03:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> The social contract was about software (it should be more, but
> we stopped with software). It mentions the DF Software G. We should
> finish a DF Document G, and add it to trhe social contract, adn
> that'll happily accomodate the LCS.
>
> Traditions do not mean moribund. We punted on the issue of
> dpcuments, it is about time we went back and cleaned up our act.
Have you read RMS' comments regarding documentation? They are, as
usual, quite relevant and on the mark.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
This is just an excerpt - I think reading the whole thing is a
valuable use of time, and would recommend it.
While a blanket prohibition on modification is unacceptable, some
kinds of limits on the method of modification pose no problem. For
example, requirements to preserve the original author's copyright
notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are ok. It
is also no problem to require modified versions to include notice
that they were modified, even to have entire sections that may not
be deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal with
nontechnical topics. (Some GNU manuals have them.)
These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because, as a
practical matter, they don't stop the conscientious programmer from
adapting the manual to fit the modified program. In other words,
they don't block the free software community from doing its thing
with the program and the manual together.
However, it must be possible to modify all the technical content of
the manual; otherwise, the restrictions do block the community, the
manual is not free, and so we need another manual.
Ciao,
--
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
Reply to: