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

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> 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.  

For software it is not even a consideration.  Why should we consider
it for documentation, which is definitely less important?  After all,
it is much easier to write documentation from a working program, than
to write a working program from documentation.  A program without
documentation is much more useful than documentation without a
program.

> > 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?

If we could sneak it past RMS, I'd be happy.  I have no problems with
including the political commentary per se (Heck, I agree with most of
it).  I just have problems with Debian being unable to take it out
(though I can't imagine why we would).

However, that would be equivalent to not having Invariant texts in any
copy of the manual.  I think RMS has already ruled that out.  He wants
a legal guarantee that the technical documentation will be saddled
with extraneous material.  He also (at least as I understand it) does
not want to special case Debian.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu