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

Re: What RMS says about standards



On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Joseph Carter wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 06:28:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 	Since you are ignoring all the discussion that has gone on
> >  before, you obviously have far more cogent arguments than have been
> >  advanced here before. I am eager to hear them.
> 
> Web archives are painful to get through in lynx and I've had very serious
> mail problems trying to deal with using earthlink's mail services in place
> of my own.  I've lost a lot of messages on the subject.  I have been looking
> for summaries.  I haven't seen any labelled as such and haven't stumbled
> across any not so labelled yet.  Perhaps one is in order?

I have summarised once or twice.  Manoj has once or twice.

*please* go and read the archives.  I'm not aware of them being painful in
lynx.  In fact, I just checked.  They seem extremely easy to read in lynx.

Marcus, Manoj, Drake and I [to name maybe the noisiest 4, maybe not - also
Raul, Richard, etc., etc.] have all thought very hard about this issue,
and written many thousands of words each on the subject.  It is a courtesy
to us to read them before attempting to explain your own thoughts on the
issues. 


> 
> >      Documentation for software
> >           Technical documentation describes the behaviour, usage, and
> >           configuration details about a specific piece of code. It may also
> >           be instructions about how to modify or extend the software.
> >           (Users manuals, etc) Examples include the GIMP Users Manual, the
> >           GCC Internals guide, any source-code written with "literate
> >           programming" tools, etc. 
> 
> This really should be with the package, when possible.  If necessary, a case
> by case analysis may be needed, but not for most things.  If some portion of
> documentation for software (ie the official perl FAQ thingie) is not
> modifiable, there's probably a good reason for it.  No reason to call it
> non-free or even take it out of main.

The perl FAQ being non-free is stupid.  IMO, of course.  Documentation
should always be free.  I think RMS's original email of the subject is in
the archives of this thread.

Jules

/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd	       |
|  Jules aka     | jules@debian.org              |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left.             |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.          |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/


Reply to: