discuss: [Debian removes free documentation / technical aspects]
Subject:
Re: [discuss] [Debian removes free documentation / technical aspects]
From:
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag ####@####.####
Date:
13 Apr 2006 17:35:55 -0000
Message-Id: <20060413173550.GB7403@loktak>
On 06/04/09 17:59 -0700, David Lawyer said ...
>
> The non-modifiable section is likely just a statement supporting free
> software (the GNU Manifesto ?). What's wrong with that? Well, it
This happens to be the case only with the GNU documentation. Others who
license documentation under the GFDL don't include the GNU Manifesto in
their documentation and indicate that it is an invariant section.
> Another situation is that many people don't understand that it's much
> more important to have a free license for software than it is to have
> a free license for documentation. Non-free software can't be studied
> unless it's open source and even then it may be hard to study due to
Non free software _can_ be "studied" even if it is not open source.
Microsoft has a program wherein you can sign an agreement / accept a
license and look at the source code of their software. I doubt if the
point of a free software license is to be able to just "study" it.
> poor comments. Not so for non-free documentation, where it's designed
> to be read and understood by the readers (users). And readers can
> then utilize the facts they learn to write improved documentation
> since facts themselves are not copyrighted.
The situation would be similar in case of non-free software. Like for
instance, one group of people can study a software and document it and
then a totally different group that did not look at the original source
code can implement that functionality (maybe "improved" in some ways:
lesser number of bugs, more features etc.?). This wouldn't be against
copyright laws either.
... Or, did I miss the point that you were trying to make? :)
> All these problems mean that a new and better documentation license is
> needed and perhaps LDP could come up with one. I'm not too encouraged
I really don't see the need for another _new_ license. From what I
understand of what you say, it looks like we need certain guidelines on
_what_ we consider a free documentation license. Something on the lines
of the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) and tests that will help
us determine if a license is free enough or not for our purpose.
Giridhar
--
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://www.appaji.net/
