Matthew Wilcox wrote: > [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess > that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread are more > interested in flaming than trying to fix the problem.]
I think that's trolling. Please don't do it. I think it's more likely that people are unwilling to look at a half-complete solution that leaves the harder part (when to use which) undone. > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt > > This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but > > some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better one? > I wasn't aware that people had expressed problems with the definition > of Transparent; it looked pretty good to me. [...] I think the emphasis on text editors and human editing are the concerns, but it's not an exact thing. > go with terms already in use than invent something of my own, but I'm > ways are then spelled out. Perhaps if it said "the following ways", > that would be clearer. [...] I think it would. > > This conflicts with "Derived Works" by denying > > some modifications (and do most understand that as "permit > > all reasonable modifications"?) > I think it's reasonable to deny some modifications. "Derived Works" > doesn't say "must allow any modifications". Just like the GPL denies > some freedoms in order to preserve others. That's not at debate. What modifications is it reasonable to deny? > > and it also contradicts > > with "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" because no > > topic of a secondary section can used as the main purpose. > I don't think that's an interesting case though. Why would you take a > document that has nothing to do with a particular subject and turn it > into a document that has that subject as its main purpose? That seems > ludicrous to me. Put another way: why is that a freedom you want to have? The simplest example is an FDL encyclopedia: you couldn't take material from some FDL'd works. > > Regarding your "Issues", note that only the DFSG's > > explanations/examples use the word "programs". [...] > That's not true. For example: > > 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian > > The rights attached to the program must not depend on the > program's being part of a Debian system. Where in "License Must Not Be Specific to Debian" do you see the word "program"? Apologies if the trim changed the meaning, but I think the cut part is beyond argument. > We need to start figuring out what our position is on docs. Right now, > it's simply "everything is software" which really irritates me (and several > other people). The argument is not and never has been "everything is software". That's almost as badly misleading as arguing against "documentation = software" which isn't the argument either. > This is a trial balloon. I think the balloon drifted off without interesting many. Let it go. -- MJR/slef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]