[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: location of UnicodeData.txt

On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:53:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:23:51PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
> > > I see no problem with this license as far as it goes, but it doesn't go
> > > far enough.
> > > 
> > > There is no permission granted to make modifications (and distribute
> > > modified versions).  (DFSG 3)
> > 
> > So, according to Branden, international standards are supposed to allow 
> > debian the right to modify them and to distribute the modified versions.  
> > Moreover, according to the non-free removal proponents, we should not 
> > even distribute the un-modified copies of these files.
> I cannot speak for all proponents of the proposed GR, but yes, that's my
> understanding.
> > Yet, unicode is supposed to be the canonical character encoding scheme
> > for debian.  
> I don't see that in the current version of the Policy manual, but it
> wouldn't surprise me if we were to standardize on Unicode, since it
> seems to be the best-of-breed in the character set department.
> > Does this mean every unicode text editor belongs in contrib (depends on
> > something non-free)?
> Many (perhaps all) RFCs are non-free as well; does that mean that
> compliant implementations must go into contrib or non-free?

I notice that you did not answer.  

As far as I can tell, given the current definition, the logically 
coherent answer is yes.  There is some wiggle room in this. See below.

> > What an interesting anecdote!
> I do not grasp what place emotionalism has in a simple, coolheaded
> discussion of licensing.  If you are upset with the ramifications of the
> DFSG, you can always propose a General Resolution to amend its terms, or
> repeal it entirely, perhaps in favor of something more pragmatic.

Anecdote.  A particular fact of an interesting nature.

> Incidentally, is there a reason you did not respect the Mail-Followup-To
> header?

Yup, the anecdote had nothing to do with legal.  Had a lot to do with
the ramifications of the more radical interpretations of the DFSG and
the consequences of these interpretations.  It was interesting to see
you argue that a license was non-free.  To be consistent with the GR,
you should have been observing that it could not be a part of debian.

If there is a point in this, it is that the status quo ante allows some 
wiggle room.  In particular, section 5 of the social contract grants
this.  If you remove section 5, and reduce debian to only things
that have a DSFG license, the resulting axiomatic system can be used in
interesting ways.  In particular, recursive application of the axioms 
is very intersting.

Can an artifact that claims to be compliant with a non-DSFG free
standard itself be considered to be free?  That is, does it depend
on the standard for its execution?  Compare and contrast this with
an installer of a non-free package.  Note:  the typical installer can,
in fact, install an infinite number of items -- after all, most
installers are not strongly version dependent!

Jim Penny

Note:  there is an intentional ambiguity of the word "debian" above,
which will drive some fundamentalists crazy.  My definition of debian:
"the totality of software, documents, and other artifacts produced by
debian developers and contributed to the debian archives".

Reply to: