Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Thu, 27 Aug 2003, Stephen Ryan wrote:
>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
>off-topic.
>[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!
Thank you.
You said enough to completely justify the existence of
invariant sections in GFDL.
Reply to: