Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
> However, I do not think that standards documents (and
> possibly other categories [personal opinions come to mind]) benefit
> from being modifiable. In fact, making a modifiable document a
> standard undermines the validity and acceptance of the standard,
> since one never knows what one is agreeing to.
If standards can't be modified, how can they be improved? I think
there is gain in allowing standards to be modified. Modified
standards must be distributed with a prominent notice that this is not
the original standard and that the original standard may be obtained
from wherever.
> Other issues of concern: Translations, and re-ormatting into a
> a different presentation format or conversion into a different
> encoding (for some documents the layout and presentation maybe very
> important).
This is tricky. If I convert your document to print on my size of
paper, or if I make your ASCII document into HTML isn't that ok?
Translations should be encouraged also. Maybe "Translations and
reformatting must be allowed with the stipulation that there is no
loss of information." That might be too vague though.
> The problem lies with Derived works. (Would I like a derived
> work of the ANSI C Standard? Sounds like what MS does)
Why not? If I want to propose a new keyword in ANSI C and distribute
a document called Guy's modified ANSI C, shouldn't I be allowed to?
Guy
Reply to: