Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> writes: > Iustin Pop wrote: >> On 2017-03-05 12:41:18, Ben Finney wrote: >> > Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic@xs4all.nl> writes: >> > > I'd like to see a compromise in the DFSG like #4 for standards to >> > > allow their inclusion in Debian when their license at least allows >> > > modification when changing the name or namespace for schemas and the >> > > like. >> > >> > Since that does not describe the license granted in these documents, I >> > don't see why you raise it. >> > >> > On the contrary, I would like to see the license granted in these >> > documents changed to conform to the DFSG, and then they can be >> > included without violating or changing our social contract. >> >> I have to say I lean more on practicality side here, and I don't really >> see a need or reason to have standards documents under the "free to >> modify" clause. > > Then they can stay in non-free along with all the other things under a > non-free license. We had a project-wide decision more than a decade ago > that the DFSG applies to *everything* in main, not just source code. I presume this issue arises because people (myself included) dislike the fact that in order to install some RFCs and/or GNU documentation one has to flick a switch that also opens the door to some thoroughly proprietary software. Of course there are several lines that could be drawn in a variety of places, but it might be nice to have the ability to only enable some subset(s) of non-free in one's sources.list (without having to specify a lot of fragile pinning) I suppose it might be possible that we (as a project) could agree to some of these subsets being easier and/or harder to enable, and thus allow the FSF to feel more cheerful about the way we look at the world. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature