Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]
Buddha Buck writes ("Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free
Documentation] "):
> [Ian Jackson:]
> > 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?
I don't think that the question of distribution is very relevant.
I think this example is just a gray area - HOWTOs are halfway between
the `official' documentationfor the Linux kernel and a set of
3rd-party hints and tips.
> 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?
I see no problem with this
Reply to: