Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic protection against modification
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 06:09:14PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 08:32:49AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Previously, it was OK since Debian was only required to be "100% free
> > software" and those license files could be considered external to the
> > actual software work. In other words, the software (even including data
> > and documentation if you'd like) had to be free but the accompanying
> > license files did not. If we now insist on "100% free", I fail to see
> > how we can justify this.
> >
> > The only defense against this argument I've seen is stuff like "Fuck
> > off", "Get a grip", "Go away", etc. If you want to stick your head in
> > the sand, go right ahead, but that doesn't make the problem go away.
>
> I guess if you want to play Nomic games with Debian and drive it off a
> cliff so that we can never do anything again, that's fine, but I prefer
> to use a modicum of common sense myself.
Well, I'd make the same argument re: "get a grip" and permanently
allow including RFC's, GFDL licensed documentation, and firmware where
source is not available in Debian. But the newly passed "editorial
changes" have explicitly stated that all components of Debian must be
100% DFSG compliant.
I assume you wouldn't go that far, and that "get a grip" should only
be applied to GPL. But why is that? And how do people who think that
the GPL should get a pass by not having to comply with the new,
improved DFSG rules, but who don't believe that firmware or GDFL texts
or fonts shouldn't get a pass, defend themselves against a charge of
blatent hypocrisy?
- Ted
Reply to: