discuss: Wordperfect and other proprietary stuff
Subject:
Re: Wordperfect and other proprietary stuff
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
20 Dec 2003 01:50:26 -0000
Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20031219194543.025b48a0@mail.simpaticus.com>
At 02:25 12/19/2003, Rahul wrote:
>We are not turning them down. We will have to check all these documents when
>they are being submitted, review them and all these volunteer work should be
>preferred for free software. That should be a stated policy
The policy is self-contradictory (perhaps not the best term, but it'll do
for the moment).
If the document is good as far as language and content go, and it's related
to Linux, we all seem to agree that such a doc should be accepted. How then
do you propose to "prefer" the documents that deal with free software?
Without introducing classifications such as those we (again, seem to have)
agreed will not work, I see no way.
And personally, I do not want such a way. My position is simple, and I
think fair: if it's high-quality Documentation about anything related to
Linux, then it's OK for the Linux Documentation Project. I would not object
to a somewhat broader definition, but I _would_ object to excluding things
that do fit under this umbrella.
Cheers,
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
http://www.simpaticus.com
