Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
On 14 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Some people seem to have, in the back of their heads, that relabelling
> the emacs manual as non-free is a mere bookkeeping change of no major
> consequence, that moving it from main to non-free is a mere issue of
> labelling.
I haven't seen this attitude. I personally support moving unfree
documents out of Debian, identically to the way we move unfree software
out of Debian when we notice it. If we believe them to be useful to our
users (and I do), we can include them in non-free. It's not "just
labelling", it's declaring that non-free work is not Debian.
FWIW, if I can't reuse a sentence from the Debian manifesto, I don't think
it belongs in Debian either.
Just so I can follow the teams, is there anyone who doesn't feel their
position falls more-or-less into one of the following?
1) Documents aren't software, so it's ok to include non-free documents in
Debian.
2) Documents with some amount of invariant non-license text can still
be considered free.
3) Documents with non-license invariant text are non-free, and don't
belong in Debian.
4) Generally, we shouldn't include documents with invariant text because
they're not free, but we should make occasional exceptions.
BTW, I have no clue how to resolve such a basic policy dispute. I have a
personal opinion, but I really expect that there won't be many people
moving between the above camps.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Reply to: