In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Goerzen wrote:
> I didn't post it yet because I'm not yet sure in my own mind what the right
> guidelines are. Despite the assertions of some, I do not think that just
> accepting GFDL 100% is the right thing to do here.
>
> I see the following scenarios:
>
> 1. I'm a Free Software user. I am using Emacs, a large Free system that
> requires documentation to learn by any means. But that documentation is
> missing or obsolete because of GFDL. I cannot make use of this Free
> package.
>
> 2. I'm a Free Software developer and want to make a derivative program, but
> can't because it requires documentation, and I disagree with the GNU
> manifesto and can't adapt it, and don't have the time to rewrite the manual
> from scratch.
>
> As a developer myself, and a believer in the principles of the free software
> movement, I'm inclined to conclude that #2 is the larger problem in the long
> run. I wasn't necessarily so inclined two weeks ago.
>
> Regardless, I still maintain that documentation is not software and does
> need separate guidelines.
If you do end up coming to the conclusion that the GFDL (with
invariant sections) would not meet your standards for free
documentation, you should make sure to include an example of some
license that would be judged differently under your proposed free
documentation guidelines and the DFSG. (Do you have such an example
in mind already?)
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
