Re: wdg-html-reference_1.0-3_i386.changes REJECTED
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> : * Any HTML changes must not generate HTML errors according to
> : an SGML-based HTML validator e.g.:
> : WDG HTML Validator (http://www.htmlhelp.com//tools/validator/)
> : W3C HTML Validation Service (http://validator.w3.org/") or an XML
> : validator.
> To allow people to mess with the HTML in non-standard ways renders
> it useless for its intended purpose. So i think it should be
> allowed into main.
I'm not going to interfere with the discussion whether the DFSG should
apply to mere documentation, but if we assume it should, then the
quoted clause is indeed non-free.
The DFSG does not judge the moral value of license constructions; it
is supposed to be an *objective* measure of what is allowed in main.
The clause would be analogous to a clause in a software license that
said that, say, any deriviate source must be portable according to
the C standard. That would prevent people from converting the source
to C++ or from adding useful (to them) features that cannot be writen
Similarly, the HTML clause prevents people from converting the text
into another markup language.