Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Sure, as can non-DFSG free source... but we generally hold that the
> > relevance of such a work isn't enough for it to be included in main.
>
> I'm saying the reason you might want to use non-DFSG-free license
> text shouldn't much matter either. Want it to cover some software?
> Fine. Want it to be an example? Fine. Want to include it in your
> info documentation? Fine.
I'm getting lost here. Do you mean that we should (in the context of
the Andrew's proposed SC) hold that even licenses covering works
should be DFSG free? Or that works as licenses don't need to fulfill
the DFSG? [Again, in the context of Andrew's proposed SC.]
> > Then may I suggest that a supporter of this argument propose a
> > Social Contract amendment that specifically excluding licences
> > like text from needing to satisfy the DFSG?
>
> Why? I don't think the social contract is being violated as is.
Sorry, I meant in the context of Andrew's proposed SC... not just the
current SC. [I and a few others in the Software = (documentation +
data + programs) camp feel that it is being violated currently, which
is why I suggest that those who feel certain classes of work be
treated differently in Debian should propose an SC (or similar) that
makes this explicit.]
> > If a significant number of Developers feel that the former doesn't
> > follow logically, then I would imagine that an amendment could be
> > made to specifically allow it.
>
> I don't think we should be making amendments to the social contract
> to deal with trivialities like how we put license texts in packages
> in main.
I wouldn't imagine so either, but the issues that have been brought
forth in this discussion are what make me wonder.
> > It's at least not acting in the best interest of a subset of users
> > who happen to fall afoul of the license terms with are
> > incompatible with the DFSG.
>
> I don't believe we have anything in main that people are likely to
> automatically violate the license
Perhaps, but that's only because we've been effectively applying at
least some of the DFSG to all of the works in main. That we would seem
to have an unwritten rule as to which works we apply the complete DFSG
to, and which works we apply part of, seems quite strange.
Every time I attempt to reconsile our current official policy with the
current Social Contract I fail miserably.
> > 2: The examples included in libc.info documentation, for example,
> > are quite clearly source, yet the work itself is (apparently)
> > considered documentation.
>
> Uh, no, they're examples, included as part of some
> documentation. I'm not sure why you find that confusing.
They're portions of source to programs that happen to be included as
part of a piece of documentation. Does that transform them into just
examples in documentation to which we don't apply the DFSG? When do we
start applying the DFSG?
> (And the issue isn't source v documentation, it's programs v
> documentation. Documentation can have its own source, obviously
> enough.)
Well, presumably the source of the programs also play a role; from
where I sit, the argument has more of the issues that you've
indicated.
> > Either way, who should be making this distinction between source
> > and documentation?
>
> People who're able to, obviously... </ObShot>
I'm interested in the context of Debian. Who (in the Debian power
structure) is able to make a decision as to which works are
documentation, and which works are source? Should this be left to the
ftpmasters?
> The social contract isn't something that should be modified
> regularly. Never would be the ideal.
Perhaps, but when a large number of people disagree as to what such an
important foundation document is saying, something is
wrong. Obviously, if there is some other method to clear up the
disagreement besides amending, that would probably be preferable.
> > That may be an appropriate argument to keep them packaged in
> > non-free,
>
> Well, no. The Debian system doesn't include non-free. Personally, I
> think an operating systems needs to be documented almost as much as
> it needs to boot; if it isn't or doesn't, we've failed in a far more
> substantial way than if we have some imperfectly free stuff in it,
> like, say the preamble to the GPL, or one of RMS's manifestos.
I still can't find the qualitative difference between this position,
and "an operating system needs X almost as much as it needs to boot"
where X is netscape, java, microsoft word, or some other "essential"
piece of a modern operating system.
Don Armstrong
--
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
-- Jeremy S. Anderson
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: