On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:39:31AM +1000, Brian May wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Software." Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be > > Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an > > It must be free software, even if it's documentation? It doesn't matter what it *is*. People can and will argue for eternity about how many angels should dance on the software and documentation pins. What matters is how what's packaged for Debian is *licensed*. > So any documentation, if included in Debian, would suddenly transform > into computer software? I don't think so... Another straw man lies slain! > Of course, it is possible to blur the issue, for instance, is a C > comment documentation or C code? Is a C printf statement documentation > or C code? Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions? Why isn't it enough to worry about the license? > What if you wrapped the contents of the GPL in a C printf > statement? Would it still meet the DFSG? Under my proposals, it would if it were a license applicable to the softare in question, but not otherwise (because the Free Software Foundation does not permit alteration of their copyrighted text). > Also, it is worth noting that even the GPL doesn't allow unrestricted > editing of source files: > > a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Also, it is worth noting that even the BSD license doesn't allow unrestricted editing of source files: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Your point? -- G. Branden Robinson | Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny Debian GNU/Linux | that reading it will cause an branden@debian.org | aneurysm. This is not that .sig. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpSC3nLwsh7b.pgp
Description: PGP signature