Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:20:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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.
Not to the DFSG - but it *should* be, to Debian, if we are to be a "good
neighbor". Legally? Sure, we can do it. Is it *right*? I don't think so.
You're certainly welcome to disagree with me.
It's people not being good neighbors and respecting the author's intent
that cause needing such licenses in the first place. This is, I will grant,
a fact of life - but I don't have to encourage it, do I?
> 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'm simply saying that *I* believe that Debian *should* apply the author's
intent to determining if something is software or not-software. If we then
choose not to publish non-software, hey, that's not being a bad neighbor,
just one who doesn't want to be in that business. Fine. But this whole "all
the world is software" is making the *words* of the Social Contract and the
DFSG into gosphel, rather than the intent (as the DFSG author has *said*,
it would appear).
If you want to see what happens when words become more important than
intent, look at your favorite villan among major religions and their
history. Am I saying we should ignore the DFSG, or the SC? No. Will I
uphold them as they stand? I agreed to in my NM application, yes, and
I will. Do I think they're holy documents that can never be changed?
If so, why the **** do we have methods for changing them? I'd already
be working on a GR to clarify and/or resolve it, and at least *try*,
but I'm not permitted to offer one yet.
> I don't have a problem with putting fried green tomatoes in main as long
> as they're DFSG-free fried green tomatoes. ;-)
I do, if people are going to bandy about the Social Contract clause "Debian
is 100% Free Software" as meaning that everything MUST be software. Fried
green tomatos do not run well on any CPU I am aware of. They tend to cause
short-circuits and smell bad.
> 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.
I didn't bring it up. Go read the archive if you haven't seen folks (I
believe Steve is one major proponent) saying that unless we treat it all
as software, it can't go in. I say that declaring an apple to be an orange
does not make it just a funny colored orange.
> The important trait of a copyrighted work for Debian is its licensing,
> not what ontological category someone has elected to place it in.
Nobody has yet to explain to me why invariant sections are not worthy of
a similar exception to Clause #4 of the DFSG, or don't in fact fall under
clause #4 directly. What is wrong with the author wanting their source (or
parts of their source) to remain unmodified, so long as they permit us to
distribute something which also updates it?
See, this is why I don't understand the assertion that the GFDL isn't free.
Even if you make the ENTIRE DOCUMENT invariant - I don't think that it's
nice, or that we should encourage it, but I don't see why that makes it any
more non-free than TeX is, so long as one can patch it externally. I think
we should actively discourage it, just as we actively discourage TeX style
"pure source" licenses, but please explain to me why it can't qualify under
clause 4.
> /me wonders if that last sentence will summon Eray Ozkural, and if so,
> if that makes it a new corollary of Godwin's Law
No comment.
--
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: