Re: Start for a discussion about free documentation in Debian.

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>]

Hi,

	There are two nebuously related ideas in this message.
______________________________________________________________________

	I think I want to differentiate between the kinds of changes
 that we are talking about here. If I write a standards document, I do
 not want people subverting or otherwise modifying the contents (the
 wrods that I wrote) -- at all. If they do, I want them to call it
 something different. However, I could not care less if the converted
 it from postscript to text to pdf or rendered tiff, as lon as someone
 reading the document sees the same words in the same sequence. 

    (modification means chaging, deleting, or adding to the words and
    images that make up the document, format conversion themselves do
    not constitute a modification)

	Any license for documentation, and any policy that Debian
 institutes, should differentiate between these kinds of changes. 

	I personally think that it would be permissible to accept
 any document, including a standard, which is distributable with the
 following restrictions:
 a) the document is distributed unmodified along with patch files,
 b) The document is clearly marked as changed, and,
 c) the document has a different name. 

	I see that marcus agreed to all these while discussing the
 dfsg. 
______________________________________________________________________


	However, there are things (like a magazine cover, or a
 graphical novel, where layout and formatting are an integral part of
 the document, and modifying or altering them would detrimentally
 affect the document/piece of art.

	As far as Debian is concerned, we should bear in mind that we
 could be looking at documents that go beyond mere software
 documentation, and I would like to see tham in main as well.

	So, if someone creates a graphic novel, that tells a story,
 and distributes it freely in pdf format; allowing no modification or
 conversions away from pdf; why do we need to change anything? Why
 would we try and modify it after the author is done?  Why should this
 not be accepted in main? The modification clause may make sense for
 compute programs, but for the wider domain of documents, I think it
 may not make sense. 

	I think we should relax the modification requirement for
 anything that happens not to be a software programs
 documentation. (even standards should be acceptable is they allow
 modification with name changes/ patches)
______________________________________________________________________

	manoj
	
-- 
 The streams (of craving) flow everywhere, and the creeper hoots up
 and establishes itself, so when you see the creeper shooting up, cut
 away its root with your understanding. 340
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org