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

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[0], off-topic.  Therefore, as any good editor[1]
will tell you, it would be an improvement to remove it.

[0] Read the GFDL; every Secondary Section is defined as being

[1] 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[2]), 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. 

[2] The electronic kind.
Stephen Ryan                                        Debian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College

Reply to: