discuss: Modifiability of documentation and software
Subject:
Re: Modifiability of documentation and software
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
27 Feb 2005 05:43:38 -0000
Message-Id: <20050227054245.GA959@lafn.org>
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 04:42:39PM -0800, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> 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 plus point regardless of the outdated docs.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.
The reason RedHat dropped our docs was due to them being outdated (I
think they complained about quality). The non-modifiability issue had
nothing to do with it. So I think that modifiability has nothing to do
with getting our docs back in distributions.
> I have more to follow up on this in a short time. If nobody opposes
> can that be considered as consensus please
No. Because few may be reading this thread. And for those that do,
non-response doesn't mean much. I could ask the same question. If
nobody else supports requiring modifiability, then is that a consensus?
>
> > 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
I agree with you on not abandoning what we have (unless it's obsolete).
But we could have a policy for new documents and perhaps for updates too
after say a two year notice that after two years we will no longer
accept updates.
David Lawyer
