Re: Free Documentation License

[Jules Bean <jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:12:13PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jules Bean wrote:
> > 
> > Since it doesn't apply to software, that's a non-issue.
> 
> I'm very tempted to go package up, say, the quake1 level files and try to
> upload them to main. After all, they're not software, so who gives a hoot
> if they violate the DFSG?

I would argue they are software.  And no, there are no hard lines.

> 
> > It does, once again, re-raise the issue of whether we need to a)
> > extend the DFSG to cover documentation, or b) establish some kind of
> > debian guidelines for acceptable document licenses.
> > 
> > Note that we do include a variety of textual works (documents) whose
> > license doesn't comply with the DFSG.
> 
> Yes, and I hate it. It's damned hypocritical

I don't think so.  There are clear, ethical and practical arguments
for free software.  We all agree on these, and that's why debian
exists. The arguments are more complex for works of opinion (essays,
etc), and so we don't currently have a clear policy on these. Maybe we 
should.

Jules

-- 
Jules Bean                          |        Any sufficiently advanced 
jules@{debian.org,jellybean.co.uk}  |  technology is indistinguishable
jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk              |               from a perl script