gEDA-user: Re: Comment on free technology please

[Karel Kulhavy <clock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 10:47:17PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 09:14:31PM +0000, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
> > Hello
> > 
> > I have changed my attempt for free technology definition a bit after discussion
> > with my friend Vojtech, who proposed that development documentation should be
> > a requirement for something to be considered a free technology.
> 
> My intention was not to require documentation to be included, I rather
> meant an extension to the GPL source code requirement to
> non-programmatical works.
> 
> GPL defines 'source code' as a form of the program most suitable for
> modifications.
> 
> For an electronic gadget, this definitely is not the board layout, since
> if you do modifications, you do them at the schematic level.
> 
> However the schema is also not carrying enough information for
> modifications, since the reasoning behind component values in it is
> missing.
> 
> So, as a 'source form' for an electronic device, I'd consider the
> schematic, plus the reasoning and equations that led to creating it and
> populating it with the specific parts that are used in it.
> 
> Similarly there should be information included how to go from the
> schematic to the layout level, where there are problems with
> interference, crosstalk, impedance, etc looming, so that the process
> done by the original author is repeatable by other people.
> 
> Note that the depth and scope of the information varies by the knowledge
> level of the audience.
> 
> The same applies to comments in the source code of programs.
> 
> One should assume a skilled reader for the minimal amount of information
> needed, however going into more detail never hurts.

Bot does it mean that if I took Linux Kernel code and stripped all the comments
(which I assume wouldn't have even a tiniest bit of influence on the
functionality) that I would violate GPL?

This is what is interesting for me. If I decide that some development doc for
Ronja is Ideologically Required (TM), then I won't suffer writing documentation
because I could develop instead, and instead be peacefully relaxed due to
Higher Ideals (TM) ;-)

Another question: where does the borderline between minimum doc required from
the GPL and additional optional doc lie? Or how can I determine it?

Cl<