On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:25:21AM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:46:19PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:00:02PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > Actually, my goals are the opposite. I see it as intellectually and > > > > logically dishonest to claim certain requirements for some types of > > > > non-program data in Debian, other requirements for other data, and do it all > > > > under the guise that "everything binary is software." > > > > > > What requirements, exactly, do you think are being made of some things > > > and not of others? > > > > I see us requiring RFCs to be mutable, but ignoring the fact that we > > distribute the GPL, which is not. I see this as also being contradictory > > with many of the arguments against the FDL. > > The feeling is that the GPL is metadata as far as our distribution is > concerned. > > Yes, this is the same argument that is made by RMS in favour of invariant > sections in GFDL'd documentation. > > I believe that it is acceptable for the GPL to be distributed. > I believe that were people happy that invariant sections in GFDL'd documents > were really going to contain only metadata, and not grow and become seriously > inconvenient, then it is possible that a majority would agree that that > particular element of the GFDL did not pose any problem as far as the DFSG > go. > > I believe that a lot of people who are anti-GFDL would do well to read it > more carefully (hell, I bet some haven't read it at all), particularly in > respect of what may and may not be contained in a secondary section. > > I still think that the GFDL is problematic and that use of it should be > discouraged. I'm not, however, convinced that the invariant sections are > as big a problem as we (and I) first thought. If you can remember back to when we first started discussing the FDL, you might recall that originally we were considering what invariant sections were and were not acceptable, and under what conditions. Once the other problems with the FDL became apparent, we dropped this, since it doesn't really matter in the face of all the other problems. But anyway, the difference between the FDL and the GPL here, is that you're obliged to include a copy of the FDL *in the document*, and not alongside it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgpb5Y_lZWDj8.pgp
Description: PGP signature