Re: documentation x executable code

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:28:29PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:11:03PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > [ ... referencing earlier docs ... ]
> 
> Sometimes this is a good approach, sometime it isn't.  It certainly isn't
> good to do this for several generations of protocols, so a reader would
> have to understand a chain of several protocols, each described as a
> plain-English diff against the previous.  Whether to modify the document
> directly or to explain as a set of changes should be up to the person
> creating a new standard, not set in stone by the license in an overly-
> broad attempt at preventing confusion.

sorry, but that argument is bogus.  convenience is NOT the same as freedom.
more to the point, freedom does not require convenience.

there are reasons why RFCs qualify as non-free, but convenience isn't one of
them.

> This is not a convincing argument for why freedom is unimportant for
> standards documents (and so unimportant that Debian should actually
> make an exception to allow it, with all of the slippery slopes and
> other messes that would entail).

personally, i think that:

a) the utility value of RFCs and similar technical documentation,

combined with 

b) the fact that there is an established procedure for amending RFCs and
   creating new ones which is *open to all*,

AND 

c) the fact that very few people (far less than one in a million readers) will
   ever have any desire to modify them,

is more than sufficient reason to be a bit more tolerant about freedom
criteria for documents.


in short, it doesn't make any practical *OR* ethical difference so it doesn't
matter in the slightest.


craig

ps: the GPL itself is non-free.  you're not allowed to modify it, so it is
non-free.  it must therefore be discarded from debian (or moved to non-free).
furthermore, since GPL-licensed software requires that the license be
distributed with the software, and we are unable to meet that requirement, all
GPL-licensed software must likewise be discarded from debian.

please explain why we should be willing to make an exception for the GPL text,
but not for other texts.

also, please convince me why i should not file a bug report against base-files
for including the non-free documents "/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL" and
"/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2", and against all other packages which
include a copy of the GPL, and all packages which reference these files in
their own copyright statement (i.e.  probably about 70% of debian).  

i probably should file bugs against all packages which depend on base-files
too, but since it is "Essential: yes" that effectively means all packages in
debian, and that would be silly.


-- 
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)