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

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

Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:

> > > 0. In general we're not happy about invariant parts of documentation.
> > >    It's a complete showstopper if they contain technical information,
> > >    but even if they don't we'd rather not have them at all. Sometimes
> > >    they're let in anyway, but only because there are specific reasons
> > >    that count more than our dislike for invariance. "There's no
> > >    acceptable, more free, documentation available" is usually a
> > >    necessary but not sufficient part of such specific reasons.
> 
> You can use the same argument to argue that some non-free software
> should go into main.  Prior to Mozilla and Konqueror, there was no
> acceptable, more free web browser than Netscape available.  We still
> didn't put it in main.  This would also mean that if better, more free
> documentation did come out, then the old documentation would suddenly
> become unfree.

The absence of a free alternative is a necessary, but not sufficient
reason.  In the case of software, we have decided that it is certainly
not sufficient.  

> I've already voted for this.  I think that Invariant text is an
> abomination.  It is unfortunate that the GNU manuals may be booted
> into non-free, but that is what happens when you forcefully interject
> political commentary into technical documentation.

What would you think about requesting the FSF to give Debian a copy of
the manual with no such license restriction, but which still included
the political commentary, under the understanding that Debian would
distribute the normal version?

Thomas