On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 10:46:47AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > jmarant@nerim.net (Jérôme Marant) writes: > > > >> take some time to deal with, but it's not remotely difficult. > > > > How should we proceed? Should we contact RMS directly? > > Should a RC bug be opened? Note that we've been shipping theses > > files for quite a while now. > > Hmm, aren't Verbatim texts a special case? I mean that they > cannot be considered as documentation and you're not likely > to modify them I think. No. The special case is the license-which-applies-to-the-work. Debian has traditionally always tolerated such things being nonmodifiable. If we didn't, we wouldn't have much left to distribute. Under my proposed interpretation of the DFSG, however, we could not distribute the GNU GPL in main *except* as a license-which-applies-to-the-work. For a real-world case where this matters, see the GNU Emacs Manual or the GNU C Library Reference Manual. The entire text of the GNU GPL is marked as an Invariant Section even though the GNU GPL itself doesn't actually have anything to do with those works (they are licensed under the GNU FDL, and in days of old they were licensed under what I call the "traditional GNU documentation license", with riders implementing an early form of Invariant Section restrictions). -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's theology is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | belly laugh. branden@debian.org | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpQUx4H0cIun.pgp
Description: PGP signature