I think there are some interesting points in this semi-flame ;)
Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:36:00PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Actually, last I saw, the FSF did not define documentation freedom at all and left us trying to rebuild that pig from the FSF-licence sausages which have been produced.
Are you kidding?
How is producing a license not the ultimate definition of what they consider free?
Well, the GPL isn't a terribly good guide to what the FSF consider to be the definition of "free software", and I don't mean that in a negative way at all: it's like trying to divine the rules for what is considered exceptional art by looking at Constable's "The Hay Wain". It's an example, not an exhaustive guide.
I think MJ is essentially right that there isn't a good treatment of what "free documents" actually are. I dislike the Debian approach which attempts bitstream-blindness, although it makes sense in the context of a digital distribution. I like parts of the GFDL, including the clarity on non-digital distribution, the anti-DRM stuff (modulo comments about whether it properly achieves the aim), etc. But the "Grand Unified Theory" that Eben Moglen has spoken of previously seems to be still out of reach.
We're talking about producing a legal document. This takes people with decades of legal experience and training. The "patches welcome", "lets do this on a wiki" approach isn't going to work.
Actually, I disagree with this on two grounds, one specific and one general.
The general comment is that you don't need to be able to write legal documents to be able to comment on them. With my small amount of legal training I feel thoroughly qualified to comment on the Wikipedia clause, and it doesn't appear that I have misunderstood anything. Maybe I can't write a correction that would be worthwhile, but that doesn't invalidate my position.
The specific comment is that the Wikipedia clause could not have been offered to general examination beforehand because of the fear that various manuals would suddenly become CC'able when the FSF didn't want that to happen. I'm slightly astonished that reasoning holds, because the assumption is that Wikipedia contributors will be happy with a change that other authors would be unhappy with.
Cheers,
Alex.