On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
> > > > requirements of the DFSG.
> > > All the software in main.
> > *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we
> > require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is
> > simply false.
> That because we're violating the social contract.
*shrug* You can claim that if you really like. Personally, I don't
think interpreting "software" to mean "programs, but not documentation"
is particularly outrageous; and considering we've been distributing
non-DFSG-free documentation in main since the social contract has
been written, I'm afraid I don't think it's reasonable to claim that
"documentation is software too" is anything but a reinterpretation.
> I don't think there's any question that "main" is the "Debian GNU/Linux
> Distribution" which we promise to keep "entirely free software".
Then I presume you'll also be advocating throwing out all GPL programs,
since the text of the GPL is either software, in which case it must
be freely licensed which it isn't, or it's not software in which case
it can't go in main, either; and without the license text, we can't
distribute any of the programs licensed under the GPL.
> It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG --
> requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't
> seem to have any justification on Debian's part.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. There's no requirement
in the DFSG that that be possible, and that's not the major problem with
the non-DFSG-free documentation in main.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature