Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 10:12 +0100, Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
> > I haven't say that because they are not executed on by the CPU they are
> > more free. What I mean is that we have those discussions because they
> > are not executed on the main CPU, which makes them different than other
> > non-DFSG compliant software. Then some people consider that acceptable,
> > some other not.
> This case is very similar to non-free documentation, which is not
> executed on any CPU at all. It sounds bogus to split firmware in a
> specific archive and to not do it for documentation, data, etc.
Which non-free documentation specifically? The GFDL has this invariant
sections concept which prevents us from modifying the doc, so you can
not e.g. fork a software and rename/update doc in the invariant
sections. However I wouldn't mind having modifiable documentation in a
format which isn't the ultimate source but is maintainable, e.g. html
format if that's maintainable over time, even if originally it was
built from docbook and we don't have the docbook source.
IOW, I don't mind with picking up autogenerated contents to include in
Debian if we can maintain it in this form.
--
Loïc Minier
Reply to: