discuss: Modifiability of documentation and software
Subject:
Re: Modifiability of documentation and software
From:
Rahul Sundaram ####@####.####
Date:
27 Feb 2005 00:43:07 -0000
Message-Id: <20050227004239.86713.qmail@web8507.mail.in.yahoo.com>
Hi
> No, not if we have a consensus that it needs to be
> made a requirement.
> But we seem to be divided on this question. In the
> past, LDP has had
> long and complex debates on licensing issues which
> have taken up a lot
> of time, hurt peoples feelings, and didn't result in
> much improvement.
I dont think there is enough activity here from
anybody concerned about that now. We are only people
talking about it. I am strongly of the opinion that
modifiablity should be a requirement and is a major
plus point regardless of the outdated docs. If you
dont get the idea already, this is the first step is
clearing up the hurdles preventing distributions from
packaging LDP docs. I have more to follow up on this
in a short time. If nobody opposes can that be
considered as consensus please
> One issue that I'm concerned about is our accepting
> of documentation for
> non-free software. For non-free documentation, one
> can read it over at
> no cost and learn from it. For non-free software,
> one usually can't
> even read the source code. I think that for
> non-free Linux software,
> the documentation should be supplied with the
> software and not via LDP.
> However, docs. that compare Linux software without
> bias (both free and
> non-free) are OK in my opinion.
>
That can come up next. We shouldnt push out all such
docs out of LDP after spending time reviewing and
accepting it but a non free branch wouldnt hurt I believe
=====
Regards
Rahul Sundaram
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
