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 manual. 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. -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature