Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
- From: Glenn Maynard <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:14:26 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040501001426.GB15306@zewt.org>
- Mail-followup-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <20040427172026.GP16797@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20040429074915.GN20924@grep.be> <E1BJ7AP-0000jQfirstname.lastname@example.org> <20040429090624.GX2365@zewt.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:57:18PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Freedoms for Documentation
> Analogous to the software program freedoms, we need to articulate the freedoms
> required for the subset of software called documentation.
> 1. The freedom to read the text, for any purpose.
> 2. The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to your needs.
> Access to the text in the preferred form for modification is a precondition
> for this. This includes the ability to modify the work to fit in low memory
> situations, reference cards, PDA's, embedded devices, etc.
> 3. Freedom to reformat the document into a preferred format or medium
> (converting to braille, or speech, or hardcopy, or postscript, etc).
> 4. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
> 5. The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to the
> public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the preferred form
> for modification is a precondition for this. For program documentation,
> this implies being able to change the documentation to reflect the changes
> in the program.
> 6. Freedom to translate the text into any other language.
> 7. The freedom to keep your modifications, or even your possession of a copy
> of the text, confidential.
I believe the DFSG already articulates these freedoms very well. Most of
this seems like subsets of "must allow modifications and derived works". I
think that if any of the above is not believed (by Debian) to be covered
by the DFSG, then the DFSG should be adjusted. (I should be allowed to
translate a program into any other language, print a hardcopy, and so on.)
I don't think it's in our interests to begin using different lists of freedoms
for different types of software.