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

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

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

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:31:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I think I would be willing to sign on to Branden's latest proposal (as
> > referred to in the headers of this message), with two provisos. 
> That's not Branden's latest proposal.

Oh bother, I missed the date on it.  Ok, I'd be happy with the
December 1 proposal on those terms.

> > First, I would like to replace the 32K limit with a 0.1% of total
> > documentation size limit, which I think allows exactly the same
> > current manuals as Branden's proposal.
> At the moment, I, personally, find any such limits far to generous.
*> I could probably be persuaded to find a 100 byte limit acceptable,
*> but giving permission for any package to include something of similar
*> length to the GNU Manifesto is completely wrong, IMO.

Ok, then aside from the debian-doc proviso, you would prefer the "no
additional invariant text" version of BLANKTWO, I assume.  (more or
less, that is).

> But you've repeatedly ignored such objections as "peripheral", so whatever.

Only because I misunderstood them or (incorrectly) thought I had
already fully addressed them.  Like I said, I make mistakes.

So, to the substance of what you say just above:

I assume that you left out the word "invariant" in the sentence above
that I marked with *>, right?  I mean, a developer already has
permission to include pretty much whatever he wants in his package, as
far as the content of the text goes.

You don't mind a few, certain, carefully selected invariant texts of
length--the ones that go into debian-doc.  I also think it's quite
unlikely that there will be an upsurge of lots of manuals with things
of similar length to the GNU Manifesto.  Do you think that there are
likely to be a bunch of them, if we permit developers to add them?


Reply to: