Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)
David Starner wrote:
> (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.)
Agreed so far. I think at least three of us vaguely remember that
discussion, so it probably happened. :-)
> (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.)
Why are gnat's docs so special they can't go in non-free with the other
non-free software?
> (b)The RFC's don't allow unlimited modification (restricting only
> to commenting on or explaining the RFC.)
And are thus clearly non-free. It's not as if access to the RFC's on a
debian cd is a crucial part of debian, so why leave the moral high ground of
the dfsg to make an exception for them?
> (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.
And thus belongs in non-free for identical reasons to what I said above.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: