documentation

[Matthew C Weigel]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 06:36 AM,

> Linux From Scratch is not a standard... are you confusing it with 
> the FHS?

Hmm.  Yes.  I've never heard of Linux From Scratch.

> I take it back. I took inspiration from the FDL in terms of 
> invariant sections, but they can't be useful ones in the FDL. If 
> you want to see what I mean I will send you a copy or link to the 
> sLODL. That goes for anyone.

Sure.

> The same OSD can cover it, I feel (as do otehrs, it would seem). 
> After all, it's the OSD, not the OSSD.

It started life as the Debian Free Software Guidelines. It was 
never put through any consideration for covering the slightly 
different world of documentation.  It is ill-considered to tack on 
new duties.

>> The point of documentation is to be read.  If it requires 
>> building, it needs to be built before the reader gets to it.
>
> Good point (for most readers) - but I'm sure there are some 
> unfriendly peeps out there.

Errr... peeps?  Surely marshmallow cremes aren't too unfriendly...

> True. I said patching isn't necessarily a good idea previously.

Obviously, I think it's worse than not just a good idea for 
documentation.

>> He's already stated he's going to distribute it in Word format or 
>> PDF - how do you patch those, anyways?
>
> with diff and patch, like anything else. They do work on binary 
> files you know (although the diffs are unreadable).

*In Windows*?  What about MacOS?

>> As much as you are to decide his neeeds *will* be served here.  
>> With groups like the LDP and FSF working on free documentation, I 
>> think it's at least obvious there are *better* venues.
>
> I'm not saying the needs *will* be served here. I am saying they 
> objectively *may* be served, and IMO *should* be served. I do not 
> say will/won't/should/shouldn't absolutely and objectively.
>
> And some people don't much like FSF, and LDP assumes the use of 
> their license statement.

The LDP does not assume the use of their license statement.  They 
specify a set of requirements which must be met for distribution, 
and offer their default boilerplate as an example.  Having spent 
more time thinking about these issues, and having a clear purpose 
to develop unaffiliated documentation, they are probably more 
appropriate.

There is, as I have said, a case to be made for getting the OSI to 
look into documentation.  It can not be made by him, with the 
arguments he has tried so far.

>> There's a clear and present need to address the W3C software license.
>
> Fair enough. What about all the other software licenses pending? 
> Could we have a list again please someone, it seems to have been a 
> while...

None of the other licenses have been waiting, what was it at last 
count, 13 months?  None of the other licenses have already long ago 
received approval from the FSF as free software licenses, 
indicating that - since they're more restrictive - there should be 
no problems approving it here.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3