Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 13 December 2001 08:48, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 08:00:53AM -0600, ichimunki wrote:
> > Obviously if the FSF is intending to lead by example, they think the
> > Manifesto is a good benchmark for what kind of texts should be allowable
> is a good benchmark. It's obvious to me that the GFDL invites abuse,
> If we're going to accept any manual with invariant sections as Free, then
> I think we should have an exact list of acceptable invariant sections, and
> not allow any others without prior discussion.
Probably a good idea-- except that then there is an open invitation to have
this very same debate every time such a document surfaces. Thanks to
Branden's correction I now understand that as his proposal currently stands
there are no exceptions built-in for anything but licenses themselves.
And fter mulling it over, I agree with Branden's proposal. I don't know what
that's worth, but I am a Debian GNU/Linux user (although not solely), and
actively engage in the advocacy of free software (on the grounds of freedom
of speech and cooperative effort-- not the price) on a regular basis.
The OPL and the GNU FDL leave openings for non-free stuff to be packaged in
with free software-- especially when you have some cases where the software
itself uses the "manual" to comprise its online help system and even in lieu
of a man page which tells how to do more than launch the program.
So while I agree with those who say manuals are not software, I don't agree
that a manual distributed as one with a piece of software should get special
consideration apart from the software itself. For the manual to be treated
separately it must be separate, and a program should have its own man pages
or online help that are commensurate with the maturity of the package.
Just as I want the right to change any splash screen that might be included
with my software, I want the right to change (or at the very least, remove in
their entirety) any "splash sections" that might be included in my software's
included docs. And not just for my own use, but for the versions of that
software I might share with others.
I especially don't want to be put in the position of explaining to someone
I've just convinced to give Debian GNU/Linux a try why I had to include some
rant in with their software (when I'd just gotten done explaining to them how
it was free as in speech) and why they pretty much have to leave it there (in
spite of all that good freedom stuff I'd just explained).
-- Michael Libby ( x @ ichimunki . com )
=====================================================
| My Public Key available from: keys.pgp.com
| or http://www.ichimunki.com/public.key
|
| Its Fingerprint
| D946 FE20 79EE 2109 161B FAFB E029 56F4 A330 AA73
=====================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8GfsU4ClW9KMwqnMRAi+zAKCWYqBgEtqN3dJT1kHdif/B2I0HPACdGwFt
hoYd2cUAxo3VY+MbzyUNYqE=
=Pvoc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: