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

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement



On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 03:02:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It's based on Manoj's draft position statement [2] with some notable
> changes (an explicit "why not just say docs != software" section, a
> "how can this be fixed" section, a "what is the GFDL?" section, and
> reordering the major problems). I've put the above draft on the wiki
> [3] so people can tweak it.

So, I've updated the wiki [0] in response to most of the suggestions
on the list so far. Currently missing are decent explanations why the
non-invariant issues are DFSG problems, rather than just annoying;
and possibly additional text detailing more of the problems caused by
those issues.

I see there's some discussion going on in -private too.

Petter Reinholdtsen added the following note to the wiki in the section
on why documentation should be free:

] This section could use more work, to explain why standard texts, where 
] part of the value of a standard text is that it is not changed outside
] the standard process, and also why the difference between programs
] as stored and operational knowledge and documentation as non-operational
] knowledge (you can not execute a book. :) is not sufficient to treat
] text and programs differently.

Are there many standards under the GFDL (which is about documentation
after all) that this is important to mention? Even if it is, I'm not
sure we want to get into the "everything must be DFSG free!" side of
things rather than just the "standards aren't crucial enough that they
warrant an exception to standards of freedom". Thoughts?

Cheers,
aj

[0] http://wiki.debian.org/GFDLPositionStatement

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: