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

Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.

David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> writes:

> IPv6 and C99 didn't change IPv4 or C89, did they?

Indeed, gcc 3.0 didn't automatically delete all copies of gcc 2.95
either, and MS-Windows 95 was not impacted by '98. Does that imply
that these software packages are eternally fixed and never revised?

> I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly
> is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG.

Icons are not metadata. The author is metadata, as is the publisher,
and when something was published.

> > You can't take package X from main,
> > change /usr/share/doc/X/copyright, and redistribute it (except for
> > packages in the public domain).
> But that's fraud. We can't do that for legal and ethical reasons. That
> has nothing to do with removing some rant that the original author 
> wrote.

Have you actual examples of rants that are protected by FDL invariant
sections to point at, or do you make this up while you go along?

Now I'll make something up ... suppose I place the following short
chapter under a "don't remove this, you may add to it" clause:

  * Acknowledgements

  Robert Bihlmeyer wants to thank Gnomovision for their support. They
  basically paid him to do nothing so he could write the Frobster3000

Do you consider this DFSG-free? Is removing this less unethical than
removing my name altogether?

Now, down to earth. /usr/share/doc/info/copyright says:

  All manuals Copyright (C) 1988, 1990-1993, 1995-2001  Free Software
  Foundation, Inc.

  Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
  under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
  any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
  Invariant Sections, with the Front-Cover texts being ``A GNU
  Manual'', and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below.  A copy of the
  license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation
  License'' in the Emacs manual.

  (a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: ``You have freedom to copy and modify
  this GNU Manual, like GNU software.  Copies published by the Free
  Software Foundation raise funds for GNU development.''

It's in main. Do you consider that non-free?

>From my viewpoint, its like BSD/advertising. Not pretty, but free.

> I don't see where metadata is specified in the DFSG,

It isn't. But the DFSG don't state that every bit of a package must be
modifiable, either. I take it that every functional part must be
modifyable at least.

> except a specific exception for name changes.

Actually (4) grants more exceptions.

Finally, applying the Debian Free *Software* Guidelines may be a bit
off, altogether.


Attachment: signature.ng
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: