Re: documentation x executable code
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 07:48:53PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
(learn how to quote. quoted text is preceded by ">" or similar. original
text is not).
> Somebody calling himself "Craig Sanders" wrote:
>
> >"a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that
> >deals *exclusively* with the *relationship* of the publishers or
> >authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject" (emphasis
> >mine) -- it does not matter in the slightest if these things can not
> >be changed by anyone but the original authors. they are not in the
> >least bit important for the task of accurately documenting software.
>
> (a) That's not how the FSF actually uses Invariant Sections; "Funding
> Free Software" inthe GCC manual does not fit these criteria, for
> example.
you're really grasping at straws here.
in what way is "Funding Free Software" *NOT* dealing with the relationship
of the publishers/authors to the document's overall subject?
in what way does it constitute the primary subject of the document?
> In practice, it's used for fairly arbitrary texts.
who really cares, as long as it's not the primary subject of the document?
it's extra crap that you can ignore if you choose WITHOUT it affecting your
ability to make use of the document.
> >(b) This prevents the documents from being adapted for another
> >purpose (suchas documenting ways of funding free software).
regardless of how admirable a trait this is, it is not a requirement of the
DFSG, and never has been.
GPL software can not be re-purposed into proprietary software - or even BSD or
public domain software. that does not make GPL software non-free. if you
belive in 100% unrestricted free software with no restrictions (not even
restrictions that protect the freedom of authors and users), then restrict
yourself to the BSD license and to public domain, because they're the only
things that meet that criteria (actually, only public domain does 100%, but
BSD license comes very close)
> > We have concluded that this isa fundamental feature of the right to
> >modify,
no, we haven't. it's great when we have it, but we have never declared that
it is mandatory - and the DFSG does not require it.
> > and the GFDL does not allow it.
you really don't know what you are talking about, do you? the DFSG does allow
it.
> > RMS has, in fact, said that he simply doesn't care about the
> > right to adaptworks for another purpose; and that he believes
> > that code and documentationshould be separate and that it is
> > never technically desirable to have themintermerged.
i expect that you're misrepresenting him by quoting out of context, but i can
see that he has a point. i don't care one way or the other if people choose
to use literate programming techniques, but i certainly don't think it's a
useful or admirable thing that deserves to be encouraged.
in any case, it's an issue that only applies to some software and related
technical reference manuals, not to other forms of documentation and not to
other forms of writing.
> > (This is wilful denial of reality, in which literate programming
> > isbecoming more and more common, and is despite emacs being the
> > original "*self-documenting*"text editor.)
"literate programming" and other related kinds of self-documenting code are
far more software than documentation and require a free software license
rather than a free documentation license.
even then, i couldn't care less if such a program had additional invariant
sections in the documentation as long as the code and the primary
documentation itself was free. some things just don't matter.
> >these are fundamental ethical principles - censorship is evil, and
> >you do not put words in people's mouths.
> This, of course, is true,
correct so far.
> and has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.(1)
but wrong from this point on.
it has everything to do with the discussion.
what you zealots are demanding is the right to plagiariase and the right to
misrepesent. you're all up in arms about the fact that the GFDL prohibits
these actions.
that is so fucked up and brain-damaged and just plain wrong that i don't even
know how to begin describing it. moronic. insane. the pedantic quibbling
rants of demented lunatics. even these only hint at the depths of stupidity
betrayed by these unethical demands.
> Nobody advocates "putting words in people's mouths".This is discussed
> clearly under the heading "It's not about misrepresentation!"at my
> page:
<yawn>
making a few unsupported and bogus assertions does not qualify as
"discussed clearly".
</yawn>
> http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
translation: i demand the right to plagiariase and misrepesent even though i'd
never actually do that, honest! but i deserve the right. just because, OK!
> > old tired slander used to attack GFDL opponents.I think it is
> > probably the most annoying misconception among GFDL supporters.
>
> (2) "Censorship" involves *prohibiting* material from being
> distributed. There isno censorship involved in allowing people to
> make their own cut-down -- "bowlderised", perhaps -- versions.
you must be an american, filled with loony libertarian propaganda that evil
things can only ever come from governments.
censorship does not require government. censorship is most often conducted by
individuals and by media companies (e.g. publishers, movie studios, tv
networks, production companies etc) and rarely ever requires any direct act or
ruling from government.
> Misrepresenting such versions as being theoriginal is of course
> not acceptable. Attempting to suppress the original is of course
> not acceptable. Being allowed to create and distribute such
> versions,however, is part and parcel of freedom to modify.
you're free to write and distribute whatever version you like with whatever
extra material you like. you are not, however, ethically allowed to change
other people's words and misrepresent them. say what you want *in addition
to* the words of the person(s) whose work you are redistributing, but don't
censor or misrepresent them.
> --Apologies for the brain-dead mailer. Won't happen again, I
> hope.
brain-dead mailers aren't an excuse for sloppy editing.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: