[summary] Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
I am interested in this thread because many of the Newbiedoc documents
are licensed under GNU FDL. I wrote a summary of the thread.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
* Everyone on this thread agreed that works licensed under GNU FDL
with no Invariant Sections are completely DFSG free.
* Everyone on this thread agreed that copyright notices may be invariant.
* Almost everyone on this thread wanted to have the emacs manual and
the gdb manual (both have invariant texts) in main.
* Several guidelines on invariant texts were proposed, including
a proportional limit, a fixed limit, the zero-byte limit (that is,
no invariant text is allowed for packages in main) and a flexible
"judge with your common sense" limit.
* What the DFSG 1 ("Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software") exactly
means is also discussed. Some interpretations are:
1) "Software" which is not "Free" is not part of Debian
2) that which is not "Software" is not part of Debian
* No guideline or interpretation proposed in this thread achieved
enough consensus.
* This thread was mentioned in the Debian Weekly News (December 5th, 2001).
<quote>
Interpretive Guidelines Regarding DFSG 3. Branden Robinson
[8]proposed an interpretation to the [9]DFSG clause 3 that covers
modifications and derived works. His proposal reflects the current
situation where there are certain parts of packages that cannot be
modified (e.g. license texts and auxiliary material). Such auxiliary
material was introduced by the [10]GNU Free Documentation License (GNU
FDL).
8. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0111/msg00100.html
9. http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
10. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
</quote>
--
Oohara Yuuma <oohara@libra.interq.or.jp>
Graduate-school of Science, Kyoto University
PGP Key http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/pub-key.txt
Key fingerprint = 6142 8D07 9C5B 159B C170 1F4A 40D6 F42E F464 A695
I always put away what I take.
--- Ryuji Akai, "Star away"
Reply to: