Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam P Harris <apharris@burrito.onshore.com> writes:
Adam> Often, i.e., the TEI DTDs (a standard, and a DTD, like most
Adam> DTDs), the licensing on the standard says that the file name
Adam> and the title of the document must be changed if the standard
Adam> is modified. This is sane and is acceptable the DFSG AFAICT.
I can live with this. Essentially, you are creating a new
standard, and you have to rename it. I still don't like Maryjanes C
standard, but, as I saod, I can live with it.
>> Standards are modified by the standards body, not by any tom
>> dick, or harry that comes along. How would things be if Debiian
>> modifies the FHS, and so does Red Hat, and caldera an so. We all have
>> our own FHS, and now none of the distributions are using compatible
>> file layouts.
Adam> Well, suppose we want to add an appendix to the FHS. For instance,
Adam> the FHS doesn't not talk about icons and pixmaps and where shared
Adam> pixmaps should be placed. We should feel we have the power to add
Adam> components to the standard; in this case, probably it would mean a
Adam> separate *appendix* document.
Personally, I think that we should make a separate standard,
called Debians FHS compliant icon location standard. Not much around
with the FHS. Like we have a web standard that extends the FSSTND.
Adam> However, I could see cases where we might feel that for the
Adam> benefit of the developers, it's easier for them to look at the
Adam> FHS, and our extensions (still compliant with baseline FHS) in
Adam> the same document. So couldn't we, shouldn't we, be empowered
Adam> to retitle the document ("Filesystem Heirarchy Standard,
Adam> including Debian extensions"), and add a few additional
Adam> directories, in each case where we are adding, mark the
Adam> addition as Debian-specific very clearly?
I think this is indeeed diluting the FHS. As I said, we must
create our own, rather than adding a rider onto a widely accepted
standard. It does not matter if we indeed document it.
If we do indeed create such a new standard, I shall move to
remove any indication that Debian is FHS compliant, because it won't
be. It shall be comlaint to our own hacked up standard, that no one
else follows.
I have strong views about standards compliance, since I have
been burned too often.
>> A plethora of almost same bug subtly different "standards"
>> dilutes the presence of the standard, and in my opinion, hurts the
>> software community wirse than proprietary, non free software does. It
>> divides us, and lowers the efficacy of the stnadardizing effort.
Adam> I agree, but I don't see why it is *necessarily* a problem if
Adam> annotated clearly, and if the derivation does not pose as the original
Adam> in any way.
Do not start down a slippery slope.
manoj
--
"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy." Howard
Roark, in Ayn Rand's _The Fountainhead_
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: