SamBC sambc at
Wed Aug 29 18:22:42 UTC 2001

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew C Weigel [mailto:weigel at]
> > Linux From Scratch is not a standard... are you confusing it with
> > the FHS?
> Hmm.  Yes.  I've never heard of Linux From Scratch. - have a look, it's very good, and very

> > The same OSD can cover it, I feel (as do others, 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.

Point me at the bits which make a problem, aside from cases of obvious
intelligent reinterpretation...

> > 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...

peeps = people. An irritating shortening I picked up somewhere a while back.

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

Different degrees of opinion, but we agree essentially

> >> 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?

No reason diff shouldn't still work. A lot of gnu stuff has been ported, and
note mingw and cygwin, if people really want. But here we're debating
technicalities, as we agree in principle that patches aren't good for docs.

> > 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.

Presumably changed since I last looked. It was a while ago, but they said
'click here for license information for all LDP docs' or something

> 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.

Fine, and I'll join this with anyone else - who else is interested?

> >> 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.

I agree this is pathetic, especially with the standing of W3C online... but
what can we do?

Sam Barnett-Cormack

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list