Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]
I'm coming into this rather late, sorry. I'm still feeling my way
around these issues, and will probably pose more than just this one
question. I'm trying to see what people feel and to identify the
issues, rather than argue a position.
Guy Maor writes ("Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]"):
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
> > [Everybody following a different standard would make standards
> > pointless.]
>
> Yes, of course everybody will agree with you there.
>
> But isn't innovation important? If I come up with a new modified
> standard, and prominently plaster big warnings all over it that this
> isn't the original standard, why shouldn't I be allowed to distribute
> it? Why shouldn't I be allowed to distribute patches so that programs
> follow this new standard? What if my idea is a good one and the
> standards body see it and incorporates it into the next standard?
>
> Is innovation of standards only allowed to come from the specified
> standards committee itself?
Different standards bodies have traditionally set their own different
requirements for this kind of thing.
Do we as a Project want to try to encourage what we consider `good
practice' by standards bodies, by making standards that are not
sufficiently easy to participate in not be eligible for main ? This
is not a rhetorical question - I'm quite unsure as to whether we
should try to make this our fight.
If we do want to do this we need to think hard about what `good
practice' is.
Ian.
Reply to: