Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:13, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor
> as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual.
It is, by definition, off-topic. Therefore, as any good editor
will tell you, it would be an improvement to remove it.
 Read the GFDL; every Secondary Section is defined as being
 The human kind, who is responsible for making sure that the
resulting work is coherent and complete. It is painfully obvious that
the so-called "Free Software" community could *desperately* use the
services of many competent editors of this sort. The emacs manual, in
particular, is filled with off-topic material, begins with a bunch of
legalese that a) belongs at the end, and b) describes in great detail
how that emacs as a whole is licensed under a self-incompatible license
(GPL+GFDL, since it claims right there that the documentation is part of
the editor), contains advertisements (for other systems, no less),
and contains a couple of embarrassingly juvenile comments about some of
the operating systems it runs on. All in all, an embarrassment to "Free
Software" -- and that's all just in the first page of the index!
I'm not an editor by trade, nor am I willing to work on something where
I perceive the license to be the height of hypocrisy *and* the license
is written in such a way as to ensure that I cannot succeed in my task.
I do, however, recognize that the GFDL is a very real limitation on the
improvements that can be made to this manual.
 The electronic kind.
Stephen Ryan Debian Linux 3.0
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College