Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]

[Buddha Buck <bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu>]

> I think I have a proposal for a condition to help identify
> documentation which ought to be DFSG-free:
> 
> If a document (or other work or part of one) is so closely connected
> to a piece of software that when modifying the software a
> conscientious programmer would wish to make a corresponding change to
> the document, then the document is `part of' the software and must be
> DFSG-free.

I like this definition.  It is better than the one I tried to come up 
with.

I do have a couple of test-cases, however...

1) Some HOWTO's, while not distributed with a piece of software, 
effectively document a particular piece of software.  For example, the 
Firewall-HOWTO describes specific answers to kernel configuration 
questions, gives lots of examples of specific invocations of 
/sbin/ipfwadm for specific network firewall examples, etc.  A 
conscientious programmer modifying the kernel-level firewall code, or 
modifying the options to ipfwadm, may wish to make a corresponding 
change to the HOWTO, assuming that the programmer is aware of the HOWTO 
(it isn't distributed with the kernel or the firewall packages).  Does 
the HOWTO count as "part of" the firewall software and must be 
DFSG-free?

2) The Xemacs manual (I don't have Emacs installed), while it is most 
decidedly "part of" the Xemacs software, also contains material that 
RMS has stated is of a "non-technical" nature, and should not be 
modified.  (Specifically, the GNU Manifesto, at a first glance).  RMS 
has also stated that some GNU manuals (which ones specifically, I do 
not know) contain similar "non-techincal" sections, and the copyright 
on the manuals forbid deletion or modification of those sections.  The 
"technical" sections, which any conscientious programmer would wish to 
change, are not subject to those same restrictions, and can be freely 
modified.  Should those GNU manuals, or even the GNU software they 
document, be in non-free, because the "non-technical" portions can't be 
modified?

> Ian.


-- 
     Buddha Buck                      bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects."  -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice