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

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 16:08, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> documentation != document. XSLT is cleary a program and s stylesheet
> should go under a code license. but a manual about programming in XSLT
> is definitely documentation and should be treated in a different way.

What about inline stylesheets? What about XSLFOs in an XML document?

> > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > if I'm only using packages from main.
> IYO. IMHO they *are* free. i explain why: if i write a 300 pages book
> about something and 2 pages about my motivations, greetings to people
> that helped me, etc. i want you to fix the 300 pages of technical stuff
> but i don't see why you should the 'feelings' i put in that 2 pages.
> you're *free* to adapt the document to your liking and even add some
> comments (invariant) criticizing my own, but litterature (even technical
> one) is much different from code.

I agree. The needs of nontechnical writing are not the same as the needs
of technical writing. However, say I want to take a 10 page chapter out
of your book and, e.g., strip it down into a 4 page quick reference
guide. The FDL says I have to preserve your 2 pages of greetings and
thanks. I believe invariant sections (in the general sense) are a good
idea, and necessary for nontechnical writing. However, I believe
Invariant Sections (as in the FDL) impose restrictions that are

 - Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net>  -  http://www.sacredchao.net
  "What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
   okay to be different, to not conform to society."
                                   -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: