Re: documentation x executable code
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:34:39PM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> If I get it right, the practical question at hand is:
>
> "Should we allow / do we need invariant sections (beyond
> meta-data such as licenses or legally required snips of
> text) in documentation that goes in "main" ?"
Well, it's not exactly at hand--this was discussed at insane length
for GR 2004-003; the project has already decided that the answer to
this is "no". This is just "review"--nobody is really saying anything
new.
> * some authors will not want to contribute documentation because they
> cannot put invariant blocks into that documentation, or they just
> don't like publishing under a license that does not allow that.
The same argument applies to programs; not every person (among programmers
and writers alike) wishes to release their work as Free Software. That
choice is their right, of course, but it means it doesn't get to be in
Debian.
> * we may have to remove some documentation that is currently in main
> because it contains invariant parts (beyond meta-data ...).
We're always having to remove programs, too, because it's discovered
that they contain non-free parts.
> One element that is not clear to me is what to do with documentation
> under GFDL, that _allows_ invariant sections, but does not _have_ any
> at this time ?
The GFDL is non-free, even without invariant sections. See:
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
for a summary of a previous time this was discussed to death. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: