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

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 09:21:57AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mer 14/05/2003 à 08:22, Branden Robinson a écrit :
> > I disagree.  I often pull my paper GNU manuals off the shelf rather than
> > consult the on-line documentation.  For most things I need to
> > accomplish, say with GNU Awk, the old paper manual is sufficiently
> > accurate and helpful.

> Then maybe it should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

> > I wonder what would happen if we applied the same standard you propose
> > to the *software* in the Debian archive...

> When some popular enough software becomes non-free, there is very often
> a free fork which gets maintained.

The point is, there are plenty of *other* out-of-date things in the
archive (whether or not there are non-free versions) that no one is
objecting to currently.  Rolling back to older versions of the
documentation would put our documentation on equal footing with our
software. ;)

> If that happens to some non-free documentation as well, that's fine, 
> but I don't think you will find many volunteers to do that.

Certainly if you expect programmers to write all of the documentation,
this is true.  But did programmers write the non-free documentation,
either?  Are technical writers not sympathetic to the cause of freedom
the way that programmers are?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgp_eQdOUqO7D.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: