On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:17:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Yeah. I wonder where all the bits about "individual good judgement
> must be used" went. It seems to me that Branden has reacted to the
> objections that too bright bright-line tests are not a good idea,
> simply by defining another and even less flexible bright-line.
My proposal does not forbid the grandfathering of any particular package
in main. It also doesn't forbid making exceptions in the future. It's
an interpretive guideline. That means it's an analysis of how we
(Debian) actually apply the DFSG consistently in practice.
Maybe you could argue that we consistently let GNU FDL-licensed works
into main, even when they don't use GNU FDL properly or as intended by
the Free Software Foundation (see bison, gdb, gnugo -- though bison may
have been a packaging error on the part of the maintainer). See
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011210070318.GB14033@deadbeast.net> for more information
on this.
However, I think what's really the case is that Debian hadn't to date
attempted a very careful parsing of the GNU FDL and its consequences.
I can't really say that my own efforts have been a thrilling,
edge-of-my-seat experience. I'd rather be hacking.
> What good can possibly come of this?
I can't recall that in this entire discussion anyone has challenged my
basic assertions:
1) That the GNU FDL can be used in ways not intended or
sanctioned by the FSF, such as by marking primary, technical
content as being Invariant;
2) That Invariant Sections are non-modifiable and thus violate
the letter of DFSG 3;
3) That the optional clauses of the OPL also violate the DFSG.
In my opinion, as people attempt to submit GNU FDL and OPL-licensed
works to Debian for inclusion in our Distribution, we need to understand
how these licenses work in relation to the DFSG, just as we do for the
MIT/X license, the GNU GPL and LGPL, the Artistic License, and so forth.
There are lots of possible position statements on the above matters.
Mine is one. I have yet to see another (aside from my own earlier
attempts). Feel free to propose your own.
> > (imho) There is no reason to change the portion of the manual relating to
> > the historical rationale for the development of the software, or the
> > philosophy of Free Software, or the dedication of countless man-hours to
>
> No, but there can be good reason to vant to not include them when one
> reuses part of the manual.
You confuse me. I perceived you and Walter Landry as being in favor of
ditching the former byte-limit clause in favor of something closer to my
Final Draft. Perhaps I was mistaken?
In any event, RMS has asserted that he is not going to change how the
Emacs Manual is licensed. We could decree that the GNU Emacs Manual, as
presently licensed under the GNU FDL, is DFSG-Free, and you *still*
wouldn't have the right-of-partial-reuse that you seek. Quote a single
sentence and be stuck with 10 single-spaced pages of the GNU Manifesto
(plus some other stuff as well). That's the license. (You could
attempt to assert a Fair Use defense in the event of such a small
quotation, however.)
If it walks like something unfree, and quacks like something unfree,
it's probably unfree.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Damnit, we're all going to die;
Debian GNU/Linux | let's die doing something *useful*!
branden@debian.org | -- Hal Clement, on comments that
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | space exploration is dangerous
Attachment:
pgpcDT3BmKwWb.pgp
Description: PGP signature