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

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

On 31/05/03 18:48 -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> > A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> > persuade the public of a certain position.  If it is modified, it does
> > not do its job.  So it makes sense, socially, to say that these cannot
> > be modified.
> This is an argument for invariant text, but not for irremovable text.

Yes & No.  For example, a Free Software author wants  to warn user for
a  specific usage of  the software.  The classical  example is  a RFID
software  that can  be used  as  a tool  against privacy.   He adds  a
warning note in  the documentation, the text is  irremovable but other
people can comment on the warning but they can't remove the warning. 

The (long) debate, as usual, is a matter of terminology. Can we find a
solution  by  having   a  DFSG  for  documentation  ?   The  scope  of
documentation and software seems to not be the same. 

For the documentation included in  the software (in source code), this
is  software  and the  DFSG  should apply.  A  software  can have  two
documentation, a built-in and the official 'external' documentation. 

Just my .02 EUR,


-- 	  	     Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) -- http://www.foo.be/
-- 	   http://pgp.ael.be:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x44E6CBCD
-- 	   "Knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance
-- 				  that we can solve them" Isaac Asimov

Attachment: pgp7IGjS4pHKB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: