Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:46:43AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Well, the changes were editorial to our understanding of the social
> contract with regards to freeness of data, especially since this
> was discussed over and over on debian-legal before.
Mostly due to people trying to word-game and rules-lawyer non-free stuff
into Debian by pretending it's not software. I don't think there's been
any real doubt of the meaning of the social contract for a very long time,
which is why I think this GR doesn't change anything.
> Speaking of the GFDL, only those documents released under the GNU FDL
> are non-free that make use of invariant sections for anything else
> than its license, right?
>
> Hence, every document released under the GNU FDL needs to be checked
> for every version, but the FDL doesn't render documentation non-free
> inherently, right? It doesn't render it free inherently, either, which
> is very bad since a new version could become non-free unexpectedly.
I recall that there was another problem. It might have been "The front
cover must present the full title with all words of the title equally
prominent and visible", which looks like a restriction on modification.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: