Re: xfig-doc has license problems in examples
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:06:22PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> If you're going to change a program, you need to/should change the
> manual along with it.
I thought some more on this over breakfast, and yes, manuals should be
free in all cases, but I think that the GNU FDL is "free enough" even
though it doesn't allow totally changing everything, only the
There could be some non-free, verbatim-only extra documentation and
tutorials in non-free, but to go in main, it has to be free. You're
> I certainly can see a desire to change how a
> program looks, or what a font includes.
Fonts, as I said earlier, is functional work and should be changable,
How a "program looks"? Well, everybody is free to replace the logos,
but I don't think e.g. Eazel would appriecate it if someone changed
their logo to "sleazel". Debians own logo is non-free, for that
matter. And you can't just go through the entire distribution changing
GNU to XINU (Xinu is not unix, except backwards) just because "it's a
Well... IMO you *should* be able to do it, sure. That's not what I
argue. It's if you can, currently, or if most of main is not
> > There's probably hundreds of non-DFSG-free data tidbits in Debian main
> > already. Like licenses.
> Licenses have always been declared out of territory, since there's no
> need to modify them, and we don't want to argue with various authors
> over the license of the license.
There's been several instances of "GPL-ripoffs", e.g. people basing
their own licenses on the GNU GPL, or was I dreaming that?