Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:

> I believe Debian should have a standard a priori the GNU Emacs Manual
> (for example), and not reason backwards on the assumption that
> everything that is in main must belong there.  People find DFSG
> violations in main regularly.  The intent of my proposal is not to grant
> categorical immunity to any class of these violations."

I can't parse the first sentence here; perhaps that's the problem.
Can you reword it?  

Of course there might be something in main that should not be there,
but if we are going to have a policy that casts doubt on them, I
really want to know what the effect will be, at least on some pretty
big candidates.  I would oppose any policy in this area in which a
restriction on amounts works to block the GNU Emacs manual, for
example, and I'd want to think carefully about other cases too.

One question I have is why we must be content neutral in our
guidelines.  My inclination is, along with you, to say that we should
be content neutral.  But perhaps we might reasonably say that the
guideline will in practice allow for whether Debian agrees with the
statements expressed or not.

This might be in the area of "cases that exceed the guidelines but we
might want to cut an exception".  It seems like we should be more
willing to cut exceptions for cases where the views expressed in the
invariant sections are in tune with Debian itself.  

I'm certainly sensitive to the problem that a content-sensitive policy
seems to actively promote big arguments.  But I wonder if, for those
cases where an exception is being discussed, we aren't already in the
realm of "big discussion", at least, and it might be reasonable to
include as part of the discussion whether we agree with the statements
or not.

I have in mind that the statements in the GCC or GNU Emacs manuals are
ones that Debian agrees with; that some horrid novella is something
Debian is neutral about; that a Nazi screed advocating total
censorship is something we are against.  [Substitute even clearer
examples here if you like; my point is not the particular examples.]

So, if we do add a paragraph to your proposal (and I hope we do)
saying "these are just guidelines, and if you think a package should
be added that exceeds the guidelines, then let's talk about it on
debian-legal" (or whatever other words to that effect)--I'd like to
say that some kind of consonance with Debian's principles and goals is
one of the things we want to take into account in making such
exceptions.