On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:15:11PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > A non-Debian layman would possibly say that "docs you can't modify > that are intended to be free for use are still OK to use" - thus:
I can see that for certain kinds of standards documents, but not for documentation describing other kinds of software behavior. > The DFDocG should state that there is a class of documentation which > satisfies the DFSG in every respect save modification. Problem here is what about packages which contain files which address multiple issues? It's probably better to have a complete document which covers all cases than a set of documents none of which is complete in itself. At least at the top level. This is incredibly tricky, however, because of the symbolic character of what we're dealing with. The raw stuff is just binary numbers, it's what it stands for to us which is significant -- and significance is at least in part supplied by the observer. Which is why the same ascii stream might be either code or data, forinstance, depending on context. And which is at least part of why "software freedom" is important in the first place. -- Raul
