Alexandre Oliva wrote:
As long as the rationale is understood the way I mean it, yes. But my
experience hasn't been exactly conducive to a belief that it will.
Thus my request for comments, such that we can come up with something
that we all understand and agree as to its meaning.
Please just follow the process that many people have outlined to you
now. You have no guarantee that the wording you drafted will make it in
but you will have a significantly better chance if you follow the
process and explain the rationale well within the draft.
A number of times, when I came up with issues along these lines, they
were deflected with claims that "we are already talking to the FSF
about this." At least it felt that way to me.
Then you felt wrong.
Documentation is important for software, but it's not software. It
ought to be modifyable such that it can be maintained in sync with the
software. Invariant sections don't stop this if used properly.
There is there no guarantee that it will be used properly. If anybody
adds text like say "Free software sucks" in a invariant section then we
can't include that documentation or remove that invariant section.
That's just one issue. See the other ones highlighted in
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
Documentation that has invariant sections are clearly non-free. Any
doubt about that?
Rahul
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
