Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

> The law is able to allow thing to fall between catagorisations, and then
> spend large quantities of time and effort dealing with the things that
> fall into the gap. Pragmatically, Debian can't - having to spend
> significant periods of time dealing with everything that falls between
> "software" and "data" (since if we're catagorising documentation as
> distinct from software, it would be hard to justify not separating data
> out as well) would be a nightmare.

At least it would seem to be nonsensical to spend a lot of effort on
this until and unless we reach a consensus on *specific* ways in which
our demands of documentation licensing should differ from the DFSG (in
its usual interpretation).

As far as I can see, none of the people who argue that the demands
could *in principle* be different have been willing to suggest
specific differences from the DFSG that they want to apply to
documentation.

Until that happens, I see little point in discussing where lines could
be drawn. That discussion is meaningless until we find out what such a
line would *mean*.

-- 
Henning Makholm                               "Hi! I'm an Ellen Jamesian. Do
                                        you know what an Ellen Jamesian is?"