On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > You know, I keep hearing this. Does this mean we should ditch the entirety > of GCC's manuals, even old ones which weren't under the FDL, since the FSF > has *clearly* indicated that *they* do not consider them to by software, > since they created a *separate license* solely for documentation - which > means that for their intent, documentation != software, and thus, Debian > should respect that and not publish it, since it's not software at all? What the FSF considers software vs. documentation is not relevant to the DFSG. What matters is whether Debian applies the DFSG to a work, irrespective of whether the work is categorized by its author, the FSF, or Debian as "software", "documentation", or "fried green tomatoes". I don't have a problem with putting fried green tomatoes in main as long as they're DFSG-free fried green tomatoes. ;-) On a more serious note, the position you're stating is a false alternative. People who would rather see non-DFSG-free documentation in main are trying to say that their opponents would exclude DFSG-free documentation from main because it's not software, not because it's not DFSG-free. That argument is ass backwards, and dishonest. The important trait of a copyrighted work for Debian is its licensing, not what ontological category someone has elected to place it in. /me wonders if that last sentence will summon Eray Ozkural, and if so, if that makes it a new corollary of Godwin's Law -- 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:
pgpvgf9mzROyn.pgp
Description: PGP signature