Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

[Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>]

Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040426 07:10]:
> > As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> > made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> > non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe
> > I can justify the policy decisions to exempt documentation, firmware,
> > or content any longer, as the Social Contract has been amended to cover
> > all these areas.
> 
> I can remember that the title was "editorial changes", and I can't
> understand it how this can change the importance of the sections.
> Furthermore, the exceptions till now was not due to the fact that we
> don't require documentation to be free (quite contrary, there was a
> consensus on d-legal about GFDL not free), but due to the fact that we
> want to have enough time to come up with a proper solution.

Well, the changes were editorial to our understanding of the social
contract with regards to freeness of data, especially since this
was discussed over and over on debian-legal before.

Speaking of the GFDL, only those documents released under the GNU FDL
are non-free that make use of invariant sections for anything else
than its license, right?

Hence, every document released under the GNU FDL needs to be checked
for every version, but the FDL doesn't render documentation non-free
inherently, right?  It doesn't render it free inherently, either, which
is very bad since a new version could become non-free unexpectedly.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
The only stupid question is the unasked one.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.