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

Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)

On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 04:06:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 09:04:08PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > > Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow
> > > modifiaction to be in main. 
> > Barf with a spoon. Is that so?
> I have vague recollections of it being true for licenses and for
> standards.  OTOH, I can't find any instances of the latter, so I may
> be mistaken.

There are several reasons I made the comment above. None of them 
are rock solid.

(1) We do make an exception for licenses. 

(2) I once heard something about that mentioned on one of the debian
lists. (Yes, I can get vaguer. It might take work though.)

(3) There are some documents in main that need that exception.
    (a) GNAT User's Guide (note that this is something I've been
    planning to mention to RMS, that the main documentation 
    distributed along with a GNU program is non-free.)
    (b)The RFC's don't allow unlimited modification (restricting only 
    to commenting on or explaining the RFC.)
    (c)The translation of the dhammapada included with 
    display-dhammapada has no right to modify.

    (d)nase-a60 includes Revised Report on Algol 60, which has
    no right to modify. 

So I don't know. Does Debian require text documents to be modifiable? At
least licenses have to have an exception (GPL goes into non-free, the 
kernel must depend on it, so it goes into contrib . . . Debian/BSD anyone?).

David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org

Reply to: