[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: distributable but non-free documents

On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 04:22:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, I am an unimpressed with the argument that standards documents must
> be regarded as sacred, unalterable texts, lest the universe collapse
> into primeval chaos.

I think, really, it all stems from a very different set of assumptions. In
the world of "folks who write papers", you *never* change someone else's
work - you just append, modify, or rewrite it, and make a bibliographical
reference to the origional.

Perhaps this has to do with the fact that it is very difficult to suitably
'version' most of them reliably.

Or perhaps, to complement non-free, we need a section for
'free-as-in-beer-not-as-in-software'... can you distribute patches with
inclusion-by-reference for beer?
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

Reply to: