Re: documentation x executable code
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> I would not have too much trouble with GFDL documentation that is not
> software in Debian, the same way that I certainly would like to have the
> RFCs and other standards in Debian. In fact, I'd quite happly welcome such
> documentation in Debian as long as that means we'd turn all guns to make
> sure the *software* that is currently under the GFDL is properly relicensed
> to be free software again. That's where the fight worth fighting is, IMHO.
Right. But all you've said is "I think these things are not software",
not how or why they should have different freedoms. Let's just list the
9 points of the DFSG:
Free Redistribution
Source Code (ie, it has to have it)
Derived Works (ie, the right to create them)
Integrity of The Author's Source Code (patch files and forced renamings
are ok)
No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Distribution of License
License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
Do you believe that we should provide documentation in main that does
not meet all of these? If so, why do you believe that these freedoms are
less useful for documentation than executables?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.project@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: