Buddha Buck writes ("Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Free Software Needs Free
Documentation] "):
> [Ian Jackson:]
> > I think I have a proposal for a condition to help identify
> > documentation which ought to be DFSG-free:
> >
> > If a document (or other work or part of one) is so closely connected
> > to
> I think I have a proposal for a condition to help identify
> documentation which ought to be DFSG-free:
>
> If a document (or other work or part of one) is so closely connected
> to a piece of software that when modifying the software a
> conscientious programmer would wish to make a correspondi
I think I have a proposal for a condition to help identify
documentation which ought to be DFSG-free:
If a document (or other work or part of one) is so closely connected
to a piece of software that when modifying the software a
conscientious programmer would wish to make a corresponding change to
I'm coming into this rather late, sorry. I'm still feeling my way
around these issues, and will probably pose more than just this one
question. I'm trying to see what people feel and to identify the
issues, rather than argue a position.
Guy Maor writes ("Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Free Software Need
Marcus writes:
> Poetry: You can't stop me translating it. Translations are considered a
> work by themselfes, where the copyright is holding the translator. I can
> take whatever art work and translate it, without considering copyright
> issues, and without considering the opinion of the original
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> On Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 12:13:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Marcus> On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 05:28:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Marcus> I can understand that people have that fear, but I think it
Marcus> is not
Hi,
>>"Enrique" == Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Enrique> Because that does hurt the non-english-speaking
Enrique> free-software community. Good software needs good
Enrique> documentation, but to a non-english speaker a manual written
Enrique> in english is like no manual at all
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Now you are confusing two issues. A book or a novel is quite
Marcus> different from a technical standard. Please let's talk about
Marcus> different things seperately.
Fine, as long as we remember that the final poli
On Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 12:13:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Marcus> On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 05:28:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Marcus> I can understand that people have that fear, but I think it
> Marcus> is not substantiated (at least within the free osftware
> Marcus> communi
On Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 12:02:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I have strong views about standards compliance, since I have
> >> been burned too often.
>
> Marcus> Yes, and this is good. But we all have strong views a
On Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 12:13:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Marcus> On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 05:28:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> No, I'm not. What I am saying is that I can see authors not
> >> wanting their
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 05:28:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> I personally would not like to allow a standard I create to be
>> readily modifiable, for what that matters. If you got ideas, feed 'em
>> to me -- a
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have strong views about standards compliance, since I have
>> been burned too often.
Marcus> Yes, and this is good. But we all have strong views about
Marcus> free software, too, and those are conflicting here (are
Marcus> t
On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 02:27:15PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I think this is indeeed diluting the FHS. As I said, we must
> create our own, rather than adding a rider onto a widely accepted
> standard. It does not matter if we indeed document it.
>
> If we do indeed create
On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 05:28:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I personally would not like to allow a standard I create to be
> readily modifiable, for what that matters. If you got ideas, feed 'em
> to me -- and I see about getting them into the standard.
Mmmh. I consider the Deb
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [Everybody following a different standard would make standards
pointless.>
Guy> Yes, of course everybody will agree with you there.
Guy> But isn't innovation important? If I come up w
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Everybody following a different standard would make standards
> pointless.]
Yes, of course everybody will agree with you there.
But isn't innovation important? If I come up with a new modified
standard, and prominently plaster big warnings all ove
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Often, i.e., the TEI DTDs (a standard, and a DTD, like most
Adam> DTDs), the licensing on the standard says that the file name
Adam> and the title of the document must be changed if the standard
Adam> is modified. This is sane and
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guy> If standards can't be modified, how can they be improved? I think
> Guy> there is gain in allowing standards to be modified. Modified
> Guy> standards must be distributed with a prominent noti
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> However, I do not think that standards documents (and
>> possibly other categories [personal opinions come to mind]) benefit
>> from being modifiable. In fact, making a modifiable docu
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I do not think that standards documents (and
> possibly other categories [personal opinions come to mind]) benefit
> from being modifiable. In fact, making a modifiable document a
> standard undermines the validity and acceptance of
On 7 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> However, I do not think that standards documents (and
> possibly other categories [personal opinions come to mind]) benefit
> from being modifiable. In fact, making a modifiable document a
> standard undermines the validity and acceptance of the s
Hi,
I think I agree with parts of this, as far as they go, as long
as it pertains to *technical documentation* of software, in which
case, if I am permitted to modify the code, I can see why I should be
permitted to modify the documentation to describe the changes in
behaviour. So, I c
It's probably worth adding that since RMS had his high-profile 'attack' on
a man wearing an O'Reilly T-shirt, O'Reilly have come to consider the
issues.
The mod_perl book, I believe, will have at least one chapter free. Whilst
this is not yet 'there', it's a foot in the door (www.modperl.com).
I
Hi,
This is Richard Stallmans oppinion about free documentation.
It might be useful in our discussion of a free license for
documentation.
Regards,
Joey
--
There are lies, statistics and benchmarks.
--- Begin Message ---
[Please repost this wherever it is appropriate.]
A couple of wee
25 matches
Mail list logo
