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

Re: (DRAFT 2) FAQ on documentation licensing

On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 06:06:33PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >It's an example of how no consistent distinction between documentation and
> >programs can be drawn: the source *is* the documentation.  I think it's a
> Wrong. When using doxygen and similar programs, source and documentation
> are in the same file but they are not the same bits.

They are the same work, under the same license, with no clear boundary
between documentation and source--doxygen generates HTML from actual
class heirarchy and so on.  Bits don't enter into it.

> >clear demonstration of how it's impossible to meaningfully hold programs and
> >documentation to different standards of freedom.
> Impossibile? I just did it. Works fine.

No, you didn't.  Please explain how one can reasonably hold documentation
and programs to different standards of freedom, when many works are both
documentation *and* program.

For example, if invariant sections are allowed for documentation--ignoring
how ludicrous that would be for the moment--we'll eventually start seeing
people saying "this set of comments inside this source file are documentation,
and we're attaching invariant sections to that documentation", which means
invariant political spiels inside source code.  Oops.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: