Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net>:
> > If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being
> > there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software
> > advocacy.
>
> If we distribute it, it is currently not out of the scope of the DFSG.
> If you have a problem with this, write a GR -- but stop with the
> pointless grandstanding.
Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
distribute something else than software.
> Oh, and where the GFDL is concerned, what you apparently mean to say is,
> "I see nothing wrong with requiring all distributors to also
> distribute Free Software advocacy". I do: it's a restriction on
> freedom.
Free software is based on restrictions because they are needed to
guaranty freedom. Free software obliges me to publish the source
code with binaries. So, if I understand correctly, I'm not free
to do what I want with my source?
Free software advocacy is such a restriction I do consider as
acceptable.
> > > that a "verbatim copying only" license is Free?)
>
> > I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be
> > considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall
> > not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you
> > wrote it, and so on.
> > There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom.
>
> We shall not distribute it.
This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share.
--
Jérôme Marant
Reply to: