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

Re: PROPOSED: interpretive guidelines regarding DFSG 3, modifiability, and invariant text



On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 03:53:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm cognizant of the work that has gone into it.  I'm just not convinced
> that it is as militantly defensive of the user's right to share
> documentation as GNU GPL is for software.

Interestingly, while we (the list) might mostly subjectively 
agree on what is abuse of the FDL on a case-by-case basis, the hard part
is finding a way to put into an quantitative policy.

Branden has the solution of limiting to size/percentage, which 
could certainly curtail some abuse. The simplicity might just make this
the best way to go.

Would it be a thought to distinguish between the different types of
documentation? Should a man page (designed to be strictly technical/reference)
be any different than files in the doc directory? Could invariants be
allowed more freely if policy dictated that anything more than a paragraph
or so be kept in a separate file?

-drew

-- 
M. Drew Streib <dtype@dtype.org>, Free Standards Group (freestandards.org)
co-founder, SourceForge.net | core team, freedb | sysadmin, Linux Intl.
creator, keyanalyze report | maintnr, *.us.pgp.net | other, see freedom/law

Attachment: pgpLzkgzGZGB9.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: