Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Ian Jackson writes:
> Susan G. Kleinmann writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on ly
x/copyright ? "):
> ...
> > This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2:
> >
> > Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they:
> > a. allow distribution of no source code
> > b. allow distribution of only some source code, but not all the source cod
e
> > needed to compile the program (even given the existence of other source
s
> > in the Debian distribution).
> > c. depend on a non-free or contrib package in order to be used
> > d. allow use only for a trial period
> > e. lack vital functionality
> > f. are installer packages
> > g. fail to meet some other policy requirement
> >
> > Packages go into non-free if their copyrights or patents require that they:
> > h. disallow distribution for profit
> > i. disallow distribution on certain media
> > j. disallow distribution except if special permission is obtained
> > k. have "any other onerous conditions".
> >
> >
> > My reactions:
> >
> > Condition (a) is redundant, given condition (b).
>
> Yes, if you think about them like that. I haven't expressed it quite
> that way.
>
> > It is not clear either what is meant by condition (k), nor how condition
> > (k) differs from condition (g). Without such a distinction, non-free
> > and contrib overlap.
>
> (k) is there as a catch-all, in case someone comes up with another
> example of a bad thing in a copyright.
>
> non-free and contrib do overlap - they are intended to. The way I
> have phrased it makes it clear that if a package meets the bad
> criteria for needing to be in non-free, and those for contrib, it must
> go in non-free.
>
> > The word "onerous" in condition (k) would seem inconsistent with
> > the Debian objective to be "a base upon which value-added
> > GNU/Linux distributions can be built."
>
> I don't understand this at all.
The above several paragraphs actually echo a common theme. The word
"onerous" is commonly taken to be perjorative; certainly the phrase
"bad criteria" is perjorative. Therefore one interprets the category
non-free as perjorative, rather than simply being a statement
of fact that copyright restrictions exist. The use of such language
is unnecessary and inconsistent with Debian's purported objective of
being a base for value-added distributions. To be plain about it, you don't
normally go around telling people you think they're bad or their
ideas are bad, and then expect to attract them to the notion of using
your software.
Susan Kleinmann
Reply to: