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

Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch

Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Steve Langasek:
>> Frank Lichtenheld has already posted an announcement[4] detailing the
>> release team's plans for the question of non-DFSG documentation in main.
> Just to clarify, is technical documentation that is only available in
> non-editable formats (e.g. Postscript files)

Be wary of saying "is only available in non-editable formats", since anyone
with a hex editor will note that there is no such thing; and you've already
been nitpicked for using "Postscript files" as an example.

What you actually mean to say is "is not available in the preferred form for
modification (e.g. Postscript files generated from unpublished source
files)".  Boy, we spent a long time on debian-legal hashing that sort of
wording detail out.

Anyway, with that clarification, no, such material is not DFSG-free.

> or can only be rebuilt
> with non-free tools or resources (such as certain fonts[1])
If the document can only be rebuilt with non-free tools, but the
document itself (both source and binary) has a free license, and the source
is properly available, then it's considered DFSG-free, but must go in
"contrib" so that main can remain self-contained.  If it goes in 'main' it's
not a freeness violation, however; it's simply a violation of the rule that
main must be self-contained.

Detail: If the binary embeds part of, for instance, a non-free font, then
the font license must be checked to make sure that the font is free for
that purpose, as nearly all of them are; this is the most ordinary use of a
font, so if it isn't explicitly restricted, we may be able assume that
permission is granted (an assumption we normally can't make).  This is just
the same as the rule that the license for a non-free compiler must grant
appropriate freedoms for the library code it embeds into binaries, in order
for the resulting binaries to be DFSG-free.

This is really not different from programs.  At all.

> considered 
> DFSG-free at this stage, provided that their license permits
> modification, redistribution etc.?
Answered above.

ksig --random|

Reply to: