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

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> You know, I keep hearing this. Does this mean we should ditch the entirety
> of GCC's manuals, even old ones which weren't under the FDL, since the FSF
> has *clearly* indicated that *they* do not consider them to by software,
> since they created a *separate license* solely for documentation - which
> means that for their intent, documentation != software, and thus, Debian
> should respect that and not publish it, since it's not software at all?

What the FSF considers software vs. documentation is not relevant to the

What matters is whether Debian applies the DFSG to a work, irrespective
of whether the work is categorized by its author, the FSF, or Debian as
"software", "documentation", or "fried green tomatoes".

I don't have a problem with putting fried green tomatoes in main as long
as they're DFSG-free fried green tomatoes.  ;-)

On a more serious note, the position you're stating is a false
alternative.  People who would rather see non-DFSG-free documentation in
main are trying to say that their opponents would exclude DFSG-free
documentation from main because it's not software, not because it's not
DFSG-free.  That argument is ass backwards, and dishonest.

The important trait of a copyrighted work for Debian is its licensing,
not what ontological category someone has elected to place it in.

/me wonders if that last sentence will summon Eray Ozkural, and if so,
if that makes it a new corollary of Godwin's Law

G. Branden Robinson                |    Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    that reading it will cause an
branden@debian.org                 |    aneurysm.  This is not that .sig.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpDA9_kh4dFL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: