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

Re: An attempt to narrow the issues

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:37:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >   A. Only copyright statements themselves can be invariant.
> >   B. Only copyright statements and associated licenses can be invariant.
> >   C. Only Copyright statements, licenses, giving-credit-where-
> >      credit-is-due, and no-warranty requirements can be invariant.
> I invite you to show anyone who's argued that some of A, B and C are okay,
> but not all of them.

Of course, I said nobody has held to A or B.  Didn't you read that far

C is inconsistent with A.  C allows a "no-warranty" statement to be a
piece of invariant text; A does not allow that.  I point out the
logical existence of A and B precisely to show the advocates of C that
they are not holding the most narrow position possible.

> >   D. Small amounts of text can be invariant if they are not
> >      documentary.  (A "documentary" text is one which needs to change
> >      if the associated software changes.)
> >   E. Small amounts of text of any kind can be invariant.
> >   F. Any amount of text of any kind can be invariant.
> Further, I invite you to look back over my debian-doc suggestion and note
> that it doesn't conform to any of your options above.

Right, the problem with debian-doc is that it just doesn't conform to
the Emacs license which requires that the two parts be distributed
together.  If RMS agrees with such a separation of text (presumably
one would also need to have the emacs manual depend on debian-doc),
then that is a different style of proposal entirely.  [And,
incidentally, I would not have a problem with it.]  

> I also dispute your handwaving to declare that Branden's interpretation
> ("everything in main must be DFSG-free") is untenable, and that
> implication that modifying them in the way that everyone does is
> hypocritical.

The following three propositions are inconsistent.  They cannot all be

1: Everything in main must be DFSG-free.
2: Invariant text is not DFSG-free.
3: Licenses are invariant text.
4: Licenses are allowed in main.

Since numbers 2-4 seem uncontroverted, I take number 1 to be false.
What is true is:

"Everything in main, except certain excepted things, must be

What the exceptions are is what we are arguing about, and I want to
impress on people that *everyone* is making some exceptions; the
question is whether it should be limited to copyright statements,
debian-doc, licenses, no-warranty statements, and the like, or should
be broadened to include small political manifestos and such.


Reply to: