On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:15:06PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: > O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 �s 07:39:30 -0400, Evan Prodromou escrib�a: > > > Probably another point worth making is that "being in Debian" or "being > > DFSG-free" is not equivalent to "being good" or "being righteous". > > [...] > > Yes, that's worthy of an entry in the DFSG FAQ, only not in the > "documentation licensing FAQ" part I'm drafting :-)
How about this, more to the point? "If the author or standards organization is unconvinced by this argument, and does not want to allow modifications, it's not a tragedy. Standards documents are useful for programmers but are by no means indispensable for Debian. Users who absolutely need a standards document can get it elsewhere, or they can conveniently get it through apt from the non-free companion distribution." I think if the only answer we have for the idea of unmodifiable documents is "oh, but _all_ docs should be modifiable", we miss an important point. "Docs that aren't modifiable don't _have_ to be in Debian" is another important answer. It's _nice_ having verbatim distribution RFCs available in an apt archive, but it's not worth changing our policies. ~Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
