Hi,
There are two nebuously related ideas in this message.
______________________________________________________________________
I think I want to differentiate between the kinds of changes
that we are talking about here. If I write a standards document, I do
not want people subverting or otherwise modifying the contents (the
wrods that I wrote) -- at all. If they do, I want them to call it
something different. However, I could not care less if the converted
it from postscript to text to pdf or rendered tiff, as lon as someone
reading the document sees the same words in the same sequence.
(modification means chaging, deleting, or adding to the words and
images that make up the document, format conversion themselves do
not constitute a modification)
Any license for documentation, and any policy that Debian
institutes, should differentiate between these kinds of changes.
I personally think that it would be permissible to accept
any document, including a standard, which is distributable with the
following restrictions:
a) the document is distributed unmodified along with patch files,
b) The document is clearly marked as changed, and,
c) the document has a different name.
I see that marcus agreed to all these while discussing the
dfsg.
______________________________________________________________________
However, there are things (like a magazine cover, or a
graphical novel, where layout and formatting are an integral part of
the document, and modifying or altering them would detrimentally
affect the document/piece of art.
As far as Debian is concerned, we should bear in mind that we
could be looking at documents that go beyond mere software
documentation, and I would like to see tham in main as well.
So, if someone creates a graphic novel, that tells a story,
and distributes it freely in pdf format; allowing no modification or
conversions away from pdf; why do we need to change anything? Why
would we try and modify it after the author is done? Why should this
not be accepted in main? The modification clause may make sense for
compute programs, but for the wider domain of documents, I think it
may not make sense.
I think we should relax the modification requirement for
anything that happens not to be a software programs
documentation. (even standards should be acceptable is they allow
modification with name changes/ patches)
______________________________________________________________________
manoj
--
The streams (of craving) flow everywhere, and the creeper hoots up
and establishes itself, so when you see the creeper shooting up, cut
away its root with your understanding. 340
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
