I meant to send this out two days ago, but due to ISP problems, a short
trip, etc, I didn't realise it didn't go out until tonight.
I apologise if debate has gone past this issue, already.
Here is a pseudo-concrete proposal regarding the supposed DFDG and the
"verbatim" section.
---------------
I propose that the DFDG be written based on the DFSG, but with the
following changes:
1. Convert all software-specific references to documentation-specific
reference.
2. Define three classes of documentation: "software documentation",
"non-software documentation", and "copyright licenses", as well as
"documentation".
I propose definitions similar to these:
Documentation: Files containing text, graphics, or other media that is
not intended to be directly executed, or compiled and executed (i.e.,
is not "software"). All documentation must be archetecture independent
(in that the use of the documentation cannot be restricted to a
particular architecture. This is not a limitation on the subject
matter). It may contain embedded code, as long as that code is
included for instructive or reference purposes. For example, a
standards document may include the source code that validates that an
implementation of the standard is compliant, or include the source code
for a "reference implementation" of the standard.
Software documentation: Documentation that includes references to
specific uses, interfaces or internals of specific software. The touch
stone is "if a change in a program would require a change in the
documentation to make the documentation accurate, it is software
documentation."
[I don't like this definition. I think it is too broad as written, but
I don't want to castrate it, either. I want to include things like
How-To documents that say "to set this up, type 'foo -bar baz'", but I
don't want to require documents which include Bash-specific shell
scripts to be declared "software documentation for bash", when it isn't
supposed to be documenting bash. Can anyone come up with better
language?]
Non-software documentation: Other documentation that does not meet the
definition of software documentaton. Any reference to the use,
interfaces, or internals of software must not be intended to be
specific to any particular implementation. For instance, a document
describing a common system mail box format (that is used, or is
intended to be used, by many implementations of mail software) would
not be software-specific, and would be "Non-software documentation".
Most standards would be non-software documentation.
Copyright Licenses: Documentation stating the legal rights granted by
a copyright holder to others. Examples include the GPL, the Artistic
license, and "All Rights Reserved". Because copyright licenses must be
distributed with the works (software and non-software) they license,
and because most copyright licenses themselves have unclear or
ambiguous copyright licenses themselves, copyright licenses are exempt
from the requirement that they be modifiable, as long as the licensed
material is otherwise acceptable. We do, however, encourage the use of
licences which are themselves compliant with the DSDG.
[I don't like this definition either. I think it is important for us
to distribute the copyright licenses for the software we distribute,
even if the licenses themselves aren't DSDG-free. I think there is a
bigger problem as well with licenses, which make them a special case,
but I'll discuss that elsewhere.]
3. Declare that all documentation in "main" must be DSDG-free.
4. Create a "verbatim" distribution defined as follows:
"verbatim": This distribution is for non-software documentation that
has restrictions on derivative works too onerous for DSDG-compliance,
but is otherwise DSDG-free. If the non-software documentation is not
DSDG-free for any other reason, it must be distributed in non-free, if
at all. Like the "contrib" distribution, this distribution is not a
part of the Debian Distribution, but is maintained as a courtesy to
those who might find it's contents useful.
-------------
Comments?
Later,
Buddha
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
