On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:52:21AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:32:16PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > > I'm not certain I agree. Point one of the social contract is "Debian Will > > Remain 100% Free Software". The obvious reading of this is that anything > > that is not free software cannot be in Debian. > I tend to doubt that *either* was intended when this was created. It > can be read either way, and there's probably not going to be a > consensus. Everyone's going to read it in whatever way suits what > they want. Not so. I'm personally of the belief that there's merit in holding documentation and similar papers/literary works to a different standard of freeness in terms of modifiability than we hold software to. However, I've found Branden's reasoning persuasive, and I don't think anyone can honestly read the DFSG/Social Contract as unambiguously allowing us to do that at present (i.e., anyone who says it does is lying to himself). > I happen to think that everything in Debian should be treated as software > as far as the DFSG is concerned. It'd be convenient for me to read that > sentence as you say--but I doubt this particular fine point of the > statement was intended either way. However, some people are interpreting that ambiguity as a license to regard the widest possible range of material as falling into the 'free' category. > It'd be nice if people would stop fixating on interpreting that statement > and instead figure out what *should* be done. The statement's ambiguous. > It won't help. Hear, hear! If people are concerned with having the regs relaxed for documentation, get the GR moving along. Talking about it on debian-devel or debian-legal isn't going to accomplish anything. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpRS9iztbPYG.pgp
Description: PGP signature