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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> a tapoté :

> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:06:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of
> > political/philosophical/historical texts. Only these texts can be
> > invariant in the GFDL.
> Could you explain in what way the Distribution section of the emacs manual
> is a political/philosophical/historical text?  It contains many statements
> of fact which can easily become outdated and untrue:
>   "If you have access to the Internet, you can get the latest
>    distribution version of GNU Emacs by anonymous FTP"
> FTP is on its way out, and might be entirely replaced by HTTP in
> another decade.

And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section?

>   "You can also order copies of GNU Emacs from the Free Software
>   Foundation on CD-ROM."
> Presumably this will become "on DVD" at some point, or some other
> CD-ROM replacement.  I remember when this part talked about tapes.

And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section?

>   "(The Foundation has always received most of its funds in this way.)"
> This can change at one stroke when Bill Gates dies and leaves all his
> money to the FSF.

> > 
> > Apparently it was needed to one more time remind which kind of text
> > can be invariant.
> Indeed.  "a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document
> that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or
> authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to
> related matters)"
> "political/philosophical/historical" is only part of it, the GFDL
> also mentions "commercial position regarding the subject or related
> matters", whatever that is.  Maybe the postal addresses fall under
> that category.
> When you look at which kind of text IS marked invariant in the manuals
> under discussion, you'll find that the FSF has a much broader idea of
> Secondary Sections than the one you're using in your arguments.

Can you be more specific? An example perhaps?

Mathieu Roy
  Not a native english speaker: 

Reply to: