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

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
> 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. 

Doesn't the GNU FDL invite confusion of the issue by sanctioning the
inclusion of, and mandating the retention of, what should objectively be
non-documentary functions of written works?

The scopes of documentation *per se* and software seems to me to be
complementary.  The GNU FDL's Invariant Sections are supposed to be used
only for Secondary Sections, which are not supposed to serve any
documentary function.  In fact, they're supposed to be irrelevant from a
strictly topical perspective.  "A Secondary Section...contains nothing
that could fall directly within [the] overall subject."[1]

Even if Debian had Free Documentation Guidelines, it's likely that (some
of) the GNU Manuals would continue to fail them, because what RMS and
the FSF want to protect with Invariant Sections isn't documention.

[1] GNU FDL version 1.2, section 1

G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |       kernel panic -- causal failure
branden@debian.org                 |       universe will now reboot
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpcyB_xqGgPy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: