Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:42:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The less "benign" the contents of the invariant section is, the less
> > of it should be acceptet. Of course some kinds of contents should not
> > be accepted at all - for example
> >
> > A derived version of this manual must reproduce this notice
> > verbatim: "ALL NIGGERS MUST DIE".
> >
> > where, I'm sure most of us can agree, the 160 bits of invariant
> > text here is 160 bits too much.
<snip>
> > (This example is extreme in order to fit into the discussion. But one
> > can surely imagine ways, if there's tens of KBs available, to say
> > things that are, as a whole, just as objectionable but still keep them
> > snugly under whatever numerical limit we set, as well as cleverly
> > buried in seemingly-relevant stuff).
>
> I agree, and it was never my contention that nothing that got in under
> the ~32 thousand byte limit couldn't be nasty. Hence the provision for
> "exclusive exceptions" as well as "inclusive ones". In other words, we
> can reject a package as DFSG-unfree even if it comes in under the limit,
> just as we can accept a package as DFSG-free even if it goes over.
Actually, I find it difficult to see how those 160 bits of invariant
text is any less free than the GNU manifesto. We should reject it
because of its unsavory character, not because it is any less free
than the GNU manuals.
> > I'd even be happy to suggest the first synthetic statement:
> >
> > 0. In general we're not happy about invariant parts of documentation.
> > It's a complete showstopper if they contain technical information,
> > but even if they don't we'd rather not have them at all. Sometimes
> > they're let in anyway, but only because there are specific reasons
> > that count more than our dislike for invariance. "There's no
> > acceptable, more free, documentation available" is usually a
> > necessary but not sufficient part of such specific reasons.
You can use the same argument to argue that some non-free software
should go into main. Prior to Mozilla and Konqueror, there was no
acceptable, more free web browser than Netscape available. We still
didn't put it in main. This would also mean that if better, more free
documentation did come out, then the old documentation would suddenly
become unfree.
> To me this sounds like a good argument for scrapping clause 3 altogether
> and modifying clause 2 to include the entire license text. This way,
> *any* invariant text that was not a copyright notice or license text
> applied to the work would have to pass a vetting process.
>
> I would point out, however, that we'd have to put the GNU CC and GNU
> Emacs Manuals under immediate review under such a policy. Also, given
> the language of the GNU FDL, I think it's reasonable to export more, not
> fewer GNU Manuals with lots of Invariant Sections in the future.
I've already voted for this. I think that Invariant text is an
abomination. It is unfortunate that the GNU manuals may be booted
into non-free, but that is what happens when you forcefully interject
political commentary into technical documentation.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: