On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:14:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Quite right. I think we should look at the statement, and decide on
> that basis whether we want to carry it.
So, if I write a manpage for, say, mutt, and include an essay about
how the GPL is a much better licenses than the BSD thing because I
don't think enough people understand that, should Debian accept it or
not? We mightn't have a problem with the screed, but if it takes up half
the man page it could be awkward. What if it only takes up 5% of the
totals docs, though? What about a rant that goes the other way, about
how the GPL sucks? What about one that talks about why "free software"
beats "open source" any day? How about vice-versa? How about one that,
instead of talking about the need for free documentation, talks about
the need for better quality control/assurance in free software?
Now, I agree that the GNU Manifesto, and the Writing Free Docs and similar
things from the FSF have a place in main, and I even agree that they're
important enough that they shouldn't need to be modifiable.
Hey. I have an idea.
How about we use doc-debian for this? Put all the political screeds that
are really interesting and famous and historically valuable and so on
in that package, and then only let those documents appear in invariant
sections.
Another problem with the FDL: you can't rip out a single invariant section
from a docco and publish it on its own, you have to take all of them.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
"Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Attachment:
pgpL5FR6PAxba.pgp
Description: PGP signature