Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> Well, not to be as pedantic as Branden often is, but I never said it was
> "just as easy to get", I said it was "still trivial to get". And it is:
> you add one line, or even one word, to /etc/apt/sources.list and then
> do what you would've if it was in main.
Well, only for people on the net.
> A lot of software in non-free can be included on CDs. Pine can, for
> example.
Right, but standard Debian CDs don't have such things.
> If you think the emacs manual is free, and you want Debian to think
> so too, you should actually rebutt some of the "peripheral issues"
> people bring up which are convincing them that the emacs manual *isn't*
> free enough.
I never said those were peripheral issues. I think you're
concentrating on rhetoric here.
What is the important value of free software? If it's absolutely
untrammeled ability to modify *everything*, then there is *NO* free
software in Debian now. (Or perhaps there are a couple insignificant
public domain things.) So, exactly which value of free software is
violated by having such sections?
> There's no easy choice, no. But you're still choosing to be blind to the
> fact that putting a package in non-free versus main is a choice to be
> *solely* made on its license. Moving it to non-free does not harm users.
Um, I never said that we should make the decision solely on that
basis. I think you're chasing down a rathole.
> > One thing that is important to recognize is that the position
> > "absolutely no invariant text in main of any kind" is not tenable at
> > all,
>
> Why do you think that?
>
> No one's questioning that licenses must be allowed to remain invariant,
> and likewise trivial addenda like copyright notices and stuff like that.
Exactly. That's why it's not tenable. When I say "X is not at all
tenable", and you say "nobody questions that X is sometimes wrong", we
are agreeing, not disagreeing.
Now, exactly which section of the DSFG allows exceptions for license
texts and copyright notices? (And advertising sentences, and no
warranty statements. And change tracking information.)
So those who want to exclude the emacs manual from main should
articulate exactly what standard they apply to determine which
invariant texts *are* allowed, and which are not.
A simple claim "trivial addenda like copyright notices and stuff like
that" is a little vague. I think the GNU Manifesto is a trivial
addendum to the emacs manual. Many more people think the noxious BSD
advertising clause is a trivial addendum. What is the standard here?
I'm not saying there can be no standard. I'm saying that there is not
some obvious line that separates trivia from non-trivia.
> However *everything* else, from the social contract, to the Debian
> manifesto, to the GNU Manifesto, to the emacs manual Distribution
> section, to the GDB Sample Session is up for debate. I'm not sure
> why you think arguing to remove all of those and anything similar
> (which is the most extreme stand I've seen anyone take) is
> untenable.
I didn't say that was untenable. What is untenable is the proposition
"absolutely no invariant text in main". If you start adding
qualifications ("except licenses and trivial addenda")--as everyone
agrees you must--then what exactly are the principles guiding the
choice of exceptions here?
Reply to: