Proposal for "Debian Free Document Guidelines" and "verbatim"

[Buddha Buck <bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu>]

I meant to send this out two days ago, but due to ISP problems, a short 
trip, etc, I didn't realise it didn't go out until tonight.

I apologise if debate has gone past this issue, already.

Here is a pseudo-concrete proposal regarding the supposed DFDG and the 
"verbatim" section.

---------------
I propose that the DFDG be written based on the DFSG, but with the 
following changes:

  1. Convert all software-specific references to documentation-specific 
reference.

  2. Define three classes of documentation: "software documentation", 
"non-software documentation", and "copyright licenses", as well as 
"documentation".

I propose definitions similar to these:

Documentation:  Files containing text, graphics, or other media that is 
not intended to be directly executed, or compiled and executed (i.e., 
is not "software").  All documentation must be archetecture independent 
(in that the use of the documentation cannot be restricted to a 
particular architecture.  This is not a limitation on the subject 
matter).  It may contain embedded code, as long as that code is 
included for instructive or reference purposes.  For example, a 
standards document may include the source code that validates that an 
implementation of the standard is compliant, or include the source code 
for a "reference implementation" of the standard.

Software documentation:  Documentation that includes references to 
specific uses, interfaces or internals of specific software.  The touch 
stone is "if a change in a program would require a change in the 
documentation to make the documentation accurate, it is software 
documentation."

[I don't like this definition.  I think it is too broad as written, but 
I don't want to castrate it, either.  I want to include things like 
How-To documents that say "to set this up, type 'foo -bar baz'", but I 
don't want to require documents which include Bash-specific shell 
scripts to be declared "software documentation for bash", when it isn't 
supposed to be documenting bash.  Can anyone come up with better 
language?]

Non-software documentation: Other documentation that does not meet the 
definition of software documentaton.  Any reference to the use, 
interfaces, or internals of software must not be intended to be 
specific to any particular implementation.  For instance, a document 
describing a common system mail box format (that is used, or is 
intended to be used, by many implementations of mail software) would 
not be software-specific, and would be "Non-software documentation".  
Most standards would be non-software documentation.

Copyright Licenses:  Documentation stating the legal rights granted by 
a copyright holder to others.  Examples include the GPL, the Artistic 
license, and "All Rights Reserved".  Because copyright licenses must be 
distributed with the works (software and non-software) they license, 
and because most copyright licenses themselves have unclear or 
ambiguous copyright licenses themselves, copyright licenses are exempt 
from the requirement that they be modifiable, as long as the licensed 
material is otherwise acceptable.  We do, however, encourage the use of 
licences which are themselves compliant with the DSDG.

[I don't like this definition either.  I think it is important for us 
to distribute the copyright licenses for the software we distribute, 
even if the licenses themselves aren't DSDG-free.  I think there is a 
bigger problem as well with licenses, which make them a special case, 
but I'll discuss that elsewhere.]

  3. Declare that all documentation in "main" must be DSDG-free.

  4. Create a "verbatim" distribution defined as follows:

  "verbatim":  This distribution is for non-software documentation that 
has restrictions on derivative works too onerous for DSDG-compliance, 
but is otherwise DSDG-free.  If the non-software documentation is not 
DSDG-free for any other reason, it must be distributed in non-free, if 
at all.  Like the "contrib" distribution, this distribution is not a 
part of the Debian Distribution, but is maintained as a courtesy to 
those who might find it's contents useful.

-------------

Comments?

Later,
 Buddha

-- 
     Buddha Buck                      bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects."  -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice


-- 
     Buddha Buck                      bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects."  -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice