discuss: [Debian removes free documentation / technical aspects]
Subject:
Re: [discuss] [Debian removes free documentation / technical aspects]
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
21 Apr 2006 05:33:35 -0000
Message-Id: <20060421000742.GB488@lafn.org>
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 05:59:57PM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
> > 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 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.
> >
>
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 12:26:51PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> I'm with you on the free license for software and all the DFSG
> freedoms. Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated several times, it's
> VERY hard to distinguish between documentation and software any more -
> in the widest sense, it's all just bits. Where do you draw the line -
I should have added that I think that documentation that goes with a
free software program needs to be free (like the code is free). If
someone modifies the code, then s/he needs to be able to immediately
modify the documentation that accompanies the code. But most LDP
documentation is of a more general nature so it's less essential that
it be free.
> Tex which builds its documentation, cweb which includes it as part of
> the program ... There have been proposals for Debian Free Documentation
> licenses before and they've all fallen foul of where you draw the
> dividing line - the Debian consensus currently is that documentation ==
> software and should enjoy the same freedoms (though there are inevitably
> some who disagree and start flamewars about it :) ).
>
David Lawyer
