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

Re: Please remove RFCs from the documentation in Debian packages


On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:17:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > * Branden Robinson (branden@debian.org) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >  >I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
> > > >  >Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of
> > > >  >understanding of the value of standards, and should be rejected.
> > > >  >Standards are not software, nor software manuals, and should not be
> > > >  >treated as such.
> > > > I fully agree. Banning RFCs from debian is just silly.
> > > So, what other non-DFSG-free stuff is it "silly" to ban?  Netscape
> > > Navigator?  Adobe Acrobat Reader?
> > Keep in mind that this hard-line stance of applying the DFSG to
> > everything in the archive will probably make it more difficult to gain
> > support for the non-free removal resolution.
> I think our commitment to providing a distribution consisting
> exclusively of material whose license complies with the freedoms
> outlined in the DFSG is far more important than the question of whether
> we continue to distribute non-free alongside.  If we are going to allow
> documentation into main that follows a different set of rules than the
> ones we use for software, the Social Contract must be amended to
> unambiguously reflect this point of view.  Otherwise, how are
> redistributors and users supposed to know where the line is between
> stuff-that's-really-free and stuff-that's-not-free-but-included-anyway?

Why not indeed traft a DFDG spec that includes licenses such as the GFDL
and IETF's and W3C's licenses, as someone suggested, and add a separate
'Documentation' section?

Things that are DFDG-free but not DFSG-free thus remain outside main,
and because these things have licenses that conform to a set of defined
requirements, it should conflict even less with the Social Contract than
the non-free section does. So, no need for amendmends.

Really, DFSG has done a lot of good. I can see a similar benefit in
harmonizing the various documentation licenses, that serves Free
Software and Our Users.
Free Software is definitely served by standards and documentation, and
convenient off line access to them.



E-Advies - Emile van Bergen           emile@e-advies.nl      
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153           http://www.e-advies.nl    

Reply to: