Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for documentation?
>
> Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
> GCC document being modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote
> GCC, for example.
That would involve removing names from copyright notices, which isn't
allowed for text *or* code.
This doesn't seem to answer the question; the DFSG already allows
making certain things inviolate for the purpose of maintaining history
(GPL changelogs, for example.)
> > If the GFDL fails the DFSG, I'd say the proper response *isn't* to craft
> > a new set of guidelines for documentation to make it fit.
>
> If software is licensed under the GFDL with Invariant Sections, yes.
> But we're not talking about software; we're talking about documentation.
Except that a large part of the discussion is exactly whether
documentation is considered software for the purposes of the DFSG, and
you and many others are (incorrectly and repeatedly) speaking as if the
issue is settled.
I've yet to see an argument as to why Debian should call a text with the
GNU Manifesto permanently embedded in it free, when it wouldn't do the
same for a software license that did the same thing. To me, it seems
straightforward: understandable, but not free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: