Re: Documentation/License freeness
On Jun 06, Santiago Vila wrote:
> This could be more than what is really needed.
> I think we should just add a paragraph to the DFSG saying that although
> the DFSG applies to *software*, modifying the documentation for such
> software should be also allowed, in general, because otherwise the
> modified software and the manual would not match (because of added
> features, different behaviour, etc.).
> I don't think it makes sense to be able to modify *all* sorts of
> documentation. For example, I don't think we should require RFCs to be
> "dfsg-free" to be in main.
> Please, read the following article from rms, sorry for the length but I
> think it is interesting:
[RMS article omitted because it may only be distributed "verbatim"; my
quoting would violate his copyright]
How about this:
Documentation may be included in main so long as there are no restrictions
on the unmodified use of the documentation and no restrictions on
translating the documentation to another format, provided the translation
preserves the natural language of the author.
i.e. the machine language (formatting, whatever) of the document can be
converted between various formats, but the natural language used by the
author may not be changed (except if the author permits it).
That would let us have RFCs, various FAQs (including the Linux/m68k FAQ,
which isn't in Debian because it's not DFSG-free and I have no intention of
making it DFSG-free), and even posts from RMS in the distribution.
| Chris Lawrence | The truth really is out there... |
| <email@example.com> | http://www.memphiswatch.org/ |
| | |
| Contract Programmer | Are you tired of politics as usual? |
| FedEx Ops Research | http://www.lp.org/ |
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com