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

Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC

On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in much
> >>doubt on it
> >where's the GR and the vote?  hasn't happened.  where's the policy decision?
> >doesn't exist.
> Now you're just being silly: 

no, it's the loony extremists who want to throw out good software just because
they don't have carte-blanche to modify the documentation that are being silly.
some (as in "some, but NOT all") restrictions on modification of docs are
perfectly reasonable, just as some restrictions on modification of software are
reasonable (e.g. don't remove any copyright notices or changelog history.
don't steal credit for someone else's work.  these ARE restrictions on the
freedom to modify, but nearly everyone agrees that they are reasonable and do
not present a problem).

> where are the GR for all other licensing decisions? If you want to change how
> things are done, you probably need to write a GR (or you could just convince
> nearly everyone, but I can't that happening from such a low base). Until
> then, the DFSG apply to all software, not just programs.

and clause 4 applies too, which explicitly allows a modification-by-patch-only
restriction.  errata sheets are "patches" for documentation.


craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"

Reply to: