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

Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org



On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:15:11PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> A non-Debian layman would possibly say that "docs you can't modify
> that are intended to be free for use are still OK to use" - thus:

I can see that for certain kinds of standards documents, but not for
documentation describing other kinds of software behavior.

> The DFDocG should state that there is a class of documentation which
> satisfies the DFSG in every respect save modification.

Problem here is what about packages which contain files which address
multiple issues?

It's probably better to have a complete document which covers all cases
than a set of documents none of which is complete in itself.  At least
at the top level.

This is incredibly tricky, however, because of the symbolic character
of what we're dealing with.  The raw stuff is just binary numbers, it's
what it stands for to us which is significant -- and significance is at
least in part supplied by the observer.

Which is why the same ascii stream might be either code or data,
forinstance, depending on context.

And which is at least part of why "software freedom" is important in
the first place.

-- 
Raul



Reply to: