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

Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section

> Is it too much if somebody says "Please let others know that I did
> wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
> opinions about X, Y and Z."? Yes, it is too much and that's why we
> need GNU FDL.
>    # #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free Package:
>    glibc; Severity: serious; Reported by: "Brian M. Carlson"
>    <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx>; Tags: sarge, sarge-ignore, sid,
>    woody; 1 year and 99 days old.
> Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A -> B.
> -- 

This is why I think it is unfortunate, but too late, that the section was 
called 'non-free' and not 'read-the-licence'.

Once you have read the DFSG you, as a user, or distributor, of Debian packages 
know what you can do with packages in main or contrib. A package being in 
non-free simply means that you have to read the licence, and this is exactly 
what the authors of GFDL documents want you to do. They chose that particular 
licence because they want the reader to be aware that there are particularly 
privileged sections of the documentation - thus drawing the readers attention 
to them.

The problem is that there are people who think that the section should be 
called 'evil' and that when a package is moved to non-free it is a judgement 
of its moral quality - but it is more of an indicator that it requires special 
treatment - and this is requested by the author - not imposed by Debian.

Have you read the side of a RedHat boxed set ? I dont have one handy but it 
says words to the effect of 'The software in this box is written by lots of 
different people and is licenced under lots of different licences - to find 
out more read the individual licences' - in other words it is all in 

To quit using Debian because Debian tries harder than any other distribution 
to be clear about licencing would be counter productive.


Reply to: