Re: Debian Free Documentation Guidelines was: License of old GNU Emacs manual
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Here is my problem, and my take, on the situation. If we have a Free
> Documentation Guideline, where would these documents reside? In main? In
Wherever they are now. If they are acceptable, they go in main somewhere,
this really matters very little.
> If in main, what distinguishes the bits in a document (README.TXT) from
> the program (hello_world)? If in doc/main, would there be a single
Since this is an old point, and we already it clear that there are two camps
in the project, and we need to cater for the two camps, why bother?
There *is* a reason why I said that allowing a maintainer to decide if he
would apply the DFDG or DFSG rules to a document would be a good idea. It
is there so that you _can_ treat it as software if you wish to.
> Why would we create a second-class definition of software, to fit in
> common misconception that digital documentation is not software? Or am I
> just a dying breed?
May we discuss this in another thread, please?
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot