Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]
On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 05:28:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I personally would not like to allow a standard I create to be
> readily modifiable, for what that matters. If you got ideas, feed 'em
> to me -- and I see about getting them into the standard.
Mmmh. I consider the Debian Policy documents to set standards, too. They are
free, nevertheless there is no fear about them.
I can understand that people have that fear, but I think it is not
substantiated (at least within the free osftware community), and therefore
should not be taken into account in this discussion. Some people are
frightened about their software, too, and forbid disassembling etc. We don't
allow this software in main.
> Guy> Of course there is a loss of information when translation
> Guy> occurs. But surely you're not saying that translations are bad?
>
> No, I'm not. What I am saying is that I can see authors not
> wanting their baby to be modified and distorted, and releasing
> standards under no-modification-or-translation terms, and I do not
> see this as a threat to the community, indeed, it is not even
> detrimental.
It is okay for authors to think and act this way, but I don't think we can
distribute technical documents with this restrict copyright in main.
Example: Some people would not like to have bash scripts ported to csh,
because they consider csh scripts as insecure. We don't allow authors to put
restrictions like that.
Just think of an author who thinks his work should not be translated into
<put any language here>, because he is a rassist, or dislikes the language
personally for whatever reasons (maybe to annoy his neighbour). I don't
think that is acceptable.
> As long as one may create a standard that borroes from the
> inital standard, but is distinct, and has a distinct name, I think it
> is OK to allow the document into main.
This comes closer to our needs. But now you are fleeing in generalizations.
What do you mean with "borrow"? We can't make policy with such vague terms,
so we should keep on the safe side with terms we have experiences with.
Marking the changes, distributing original source along with patches,
changing the title... all well.
But "borrow"?
> I am not really talking about ideal licencing here (marcus and
> RMS and co are doing that). I am talking about wht I think is
> detrimental to the community, and shold not be in main, and what I
> think does not harm the community, and, IMHO, should be allowed into
> Debian.
I'm also not discussing perfect world here. Reality requires clear terms. We have
to decide if we want to allow non-dfsg-free data entities at all, and when,
which under which additional restrictions.
Note that "original source with patches", "title change", "marking the
changes in an obvious way" is already granted by the dfsg.
Is there any further restrcitions you want allow in main? Please be more
specific in this case.
Thank you,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: