Re: Non Program Freeness
gecko@benham.net wrote:
> However, what about other documents that aren't part of any program?
> Let's take the DFSG as an example. Let's say Star Divisions wanted
> their StarOffice to be considered Free Software. If the DFSG is
> DFSG-Free in the purest sense, they could remove the clauses that make
> their software unfree and re-release it ... the DFSG.
Sigh. Here we go again. All we need to do to prevent this is require in the
copyright of the DFSG that if you modify the DFSG, you release it under a
different name. Star Division would do no harm to us if they released an
evil "SDFSG".
> To start, my take on it.
> Obviously, anything we include in main needs to be freely
> distributable. It should probably be "derivable". But I don't think
> it *has* to be "modifiable".
So what do you plan to do if there is a bug in this non-modifiable item you
have placed in the main distribution? (And yes, documentation, and even
artwork, can have bugs in it (ie: "this documentation says rm -rf / is a
good thing", "this icon uses 1024 colors too many")).
Myself, I make no distiction in my mind between source, art, documentation
-- if it's in debian, it must be DFSG free. The only exception I have any
desire to make is that we have to allow even non-free copyright texts into
the distribution, for legal reasons.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: