Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-09 07:22:57 +0100 Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
Another one would be from Debian to make a difference between non-free
software and non-DFSG compliant documentation.
To do this, a precise partition between documentation and software
would need to exist. Because they have a non-empty intersection, you
would have to pick one boundary or the other. Debian currently picks
one edge (the software edge). To even suggest the other, you need to
give a way of locating the edge of documentation that we can agree on.
[...]
(if it's possible to argue that the GNU FDL is not DFSG-compliant,
it's a bit hard to claims it's proprietary documentation).
Possibly, but it's easy to claim it's partially a proprietary document.
[...] And the affected ones will be users at first (lacking good
documentation because of an invariant section that is maybe not
something they consider as non-free),
This is not a new effect: users who disagree with our definition of
free software already don't have some things they may consider as free
in Debian.
the debian developers (forced to write from scratch new
documentation),
They are not forced to do that, but may choose to.
the GNU developers (losting an user base for their documentation).
This is entirely down to the GNU developers and the remedy is in their
own hands.
[...]
I agree with your first phrase. Unfortunately I cannot agree with the
last one: Debian already recommends non-free software to users by
provide apt-get links to these softwares, [...]
If linking were recommendation, then FSF recommends SCO, the FIPR and
kelkoo because it links to them on
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/sco/questioning-sco.html
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html and
http://patron.fsf.org/2003-patrons.html respectively. This is clearly
absurd.
Debian has non-free software packaged for it on its mirrors, but it is
not recommended and moves are underway about that, so please stop
pushing at the open door.
[...] suddenly, because of one potential problem
(you're not forced to use invariant options!), concluding that this
license is completely non-free, isn't it?
As I understand it, invariants are not the only problem and this "even
one freedom problem means non-free" is not significantly different to
FSF decision-making.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: