Re: documentation x executable code
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:10:18PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:03:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > no, acroread is DFSG non-free for other reasons that have nothing
> > to do with convenience. most notably, the complete absence of
> > source-code, and the right to modify and redistribute the source.
> Irrelevant. It doesn't matter that the process is inconvenient.
> Lack of source code and no permission to modify the existing article
> are just convenience.
no, they're not "just convenience". they are non-negotiable requirements
of the DFSG.
convenience, however, is NOT a requirement.
> > > but your new RFC cannot be a derived work of the superceded on e.
> > > That's a real practical difference to m e.
> > in theory, you may be right. in practice, nobody would give a damn -
> > and nobody HAS given a damn when people have done exactly that.
> So you're advocating the deliberate and knowing breach of copyright?
when did i advocate that?
i just pointed out the historical reality.
> > by your own admission, the GPL is a non-free document. why, then, is
> > it OK to distribute it within debian, and why is it OK to distribute
> > other works which depend upon it (at best, they should go in
> > contrib)?
> We're not distributing the GPL as a document,
that makes no sense at all. of course, we're "distributing the GPL as a
document". it's a document. we're distributing it.
> we're distributing it as an exact description of the terms under which
> some things in Debian are allowed to be copied.
but we've already voted that debian will be entirely free. and we've
voted to disambiguate that phrase so that it means *everything* must be
free, not just "software". accordingly, if the GPL itself isn't free, we
can't distribute it in debian.
> We can't have a distribution without it.
yes, that is the obvious and inevitable consequence of moronic pedantry.
as the GPL says:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
the solution to this problem is not to be selectively pedantic, but to
be consistent and eliminate pedantry.
> No such equivalent exists for any of the other non-DFSG-free crud you
> want to burden us with.
please take your ad-hominem bullshit and shove it somewhere painful. i
don't want to burden debian with *ANY* "non-DFSG-free crud".
craig sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org> (part time cyborg)