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

Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section

Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:

> The question is that we will block this package from enterring debian because
> of a clause which may, maybe, also have blocked other packages which we would
> not like being removed. But again, it can be dealt with at another time.

If you know of any, we should discuss them.  Are you saying the rule
is being applied unfairly?  If so, we need to have the details so they
can be discussed.

The real problem seems to be not the issue about aggregation, but
specifically the case that distribution on different kinds of media is
being treated differently, in a way which lets one be free, but not
the other. 

> But still, what you are opposing here, is the freedom of access to knowledge
> to the freedom of making money out of it. Which one do you feel is more
> important ? (Sorry, couldn't resist adding one more argument).

Um, I'm in favor of both.  I have no objection to O'Reilly making
money by selling books.  Free software (and free manuals) does not
imply some kind of communistic lack-of-money world.

> Oreilly is a book publishing business, they had this book written, they
> published it, they distribute it all over the world, they want to make money
> from it, a part of which goes to the authors of the book. 

The FSF is also a book publishing business.  The have books written,
they publish them, they distribute them all over the world, they want
to make money from them--and guess what--they don't find the need to
have these kinds of restrictions on the manuals.  (*)

> Debian is a software distribution (or at least that comes closest to what we
> do, but i guess we are much more than that, and the guardians of the only tru
> way too :))), we deal in free software, and documentation for it in
> electronic form, not book publishing.

Where do you get "electronic form" from the DFSG?


(*) The issues about the GFDL are very different in kind.

Reply to: