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

The old DFSG-lemma again...

As I warned, I have been absent. (I dropped my computer in a marble 
staircase. It worked for a while, but now it was long since it booted.)

My internet access is sporadic.

I've been thinking a lot on this problem, and I'm less sure that I'm 
right than I originally was.

Branden has, I suspect, two very good reasons why we should stick to the 
DFSG and apply it for everything. 1) It's what we have written at 
present, it's what our policy states at present, and the social contract 
can be interpreted to state something to that extent as well. 2) The DFSG 
is about freedom and freedom is generally a good thing. We can very well 
stick non-free examples and data files into non-free.

However; this issue has to be discussed because of the following reasons, 
at least one of which are important:

1) The GPL license text itself doesn't pass the DFSG. Yes, this is 
absurd. Yes, some people say that Debian needs to be able to distribute 
GPL:ed software (for which distributing the GPL itself is a 
prerequisite), and I agree. Accordingly; there needs to be an amendment 
or clarification of what Debian can distribute, or what "Debian will 
remain 100% free software" means. No, please don't flame me (I can dish 
it out, but I can't take it!) for this, saying that "Of course Debian can 
distribute the GPL". Where does it say, officially?

2) The GNU FDL doesn't pass the DFSG. This is a minor issue; FDL-stamped 
documentation can reside safely in non-free. (But that's weird. And they 
aren't there now. So we're obviously doing something wrong.)

3) Images and logos and icons doesn't always pass the DFSG. We can draw 
free replacements for them, sure, so this isn't a big issue either, but 
it sure is a hassle.

To recap/clarify my previous position on this:
I suggested that Debian should have Free Art/Information Guidelines, that 
allowed us distribute things that aren't really computer programs with a 
minimum of hassle. These would go like: "Freedom to redistribute in any 
format, with or without a fee. Freedom to translate." Etc etc. Make up 
your own. Freedoms you feel we need to have. (If these guidelines should 
be too harsh, we can always stick the other stuff in non-free, so don't 

Now... I don't know if we need this, but we need to do something. Perhaps 
I should go reread the constitiution, I don't really know how Debian 
decides things like this, but we have a problem at our hands that is 
definitely solvable.

There's basically two ways: We remove everything that doesn't pass the 
DFSG (including the kernels), or - we acknowledge in some official Debian-
paper (I don't remember how these things work) that Debian may distribute 
non-functional software, like license text, that doesn't pass the DFSG.

Branden mentioned talking to RMS about this - as long as we're asking 
around, might I suggest that we talk to Bruce Perens? He wrote the DFSG, 
after all.

Briling Fenderson (Oh, and I just finished reading "Days of War, Nights 
of Love" and I feel kind of bad sitting here discussing and nitpicking 
over legal details, but I'm a geek. So sue me. :) Oh, as well as I'm 
stirring up old wounds - did anyone think that the "split non-US" idea 
was a good one? Or a bad one?)

GNU slash Linux is still less syllables that Windows two thousand. - RMS
(I guess that's why they made XP.)

Reply to: