On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 12:28, Joerg Wendland wrote:
> The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
> invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
> conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
> not want anybody to change that section, write anything into it that I
> do not agree with. The readers of that modified version will think it is
> my opinion they are reading thouhg it is not and may be even contrary to
> mine. What does that mean? When I am free to say what I want (freedom of
> speech, one of our highest goals!) I do want to keep to my words and do
> not want anybody to put words in my mouth I would never say.
>
I disagree with this opinion.
Why shouldn't I be able to modify some documentation, and then modify
the conclusions that go alongside it? After all, they might be
different now.
If you're worried about people assuming that the modifications are also
your "opinion", then use a licence like the GPL that requires changes to
be logged:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the
Program or any portion of it, thus forming a
work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under
the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to
carry prominent notices stating that you
changed the files and the date of any
change.
And to use another example, if a political platform written by RMS and
distributed in the GNU Emacs manual contains enough useful points; why
shouldn't I be able to take it, modify it to fit my needs, then include
it in my software?
These are the "freedoms" I have for software, I should have the same
freedoms for documentation!
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part