Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]
On Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 12:13:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
>
> Marcus> On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 05:28:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Marcus> It is okay for authors to think and act this way, but I don't
> Marcus> think we can distribute technical documents with this
> Marcus> restrict copyright in main.
>
> Reasons, please.
Because that does hurt the non-english-speaking free-software community.
Good software needs good documentation, but to a non-english speaker a
manual written in english is like no manual at all. If its author doesn't
allow translations, someone else has to write a new manual from scratch.
If everybody choose the "no-translation" terms that means the community
needs different manuals for english, french, german, spanish, italian,
japanese, chinese, ...
> This is borderline. However, the resistance to translation
> could be that some things do not translate well (peotry is one). For
> some works of art, translation is artistic butchery. I can see why
> people may not want that to happen.
Let's talk about technical documents then. I don't care much about the
immutability of a novel or a poetry work.
> How about an original Graphic Novel? How about James Joyces
> "Ullyses"? Do you approve af people punctuating Joyce's books?
I remember seeing a few 'annotated "Ulisses"' books last time I went to
the English Literature section of the university library. I guess that's
common practice.
But again, I think we should be focusing in technical documents.
--
Enrique Zanardi ezanardi@ull.es
Reply to: