Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
> > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
> > > > > requirements of the DFSG.
> > > > All the software in main.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > *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.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That because we're violating the social contract.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:34:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> *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.
The DFSG itself uses the term "programs" in some places and not in others.
I can see some sense in saying that points where it specifically uses
the term "program" don't apply to documentation if that documentation
isn't supplied in the form of a program.
But where the DFSG uses the term "works" I don't see any sense in claiming
that it's talking only about programs and not about documentation. Which
is the case for guideline #3.
> > 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.
I don't see the sense in that -- the social contract explicitly states
that the DFSG defines what it means by free software, and the DFSG
already addresses this issue differently from what you presume I'll
be advocating.
> > 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.
That was intended to be a reference to a GFDL secondary section as a
non-modifiable work.
I've not done any kind of exhaustive look at this issue, but if you want
to talk about other issues that's fine by me.
--
Raul
Reply to: