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

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL



On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:41:27AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:24:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >     1) You remove the FSF's endorsement of the license which
> >        is the preamble. The Debian Project has no problem with
> >        this; it is certainly an author's right to refuse to
> >        endorse arbitrary changes.
> 
> > So, the full terms that the GPL is distributed under, as explained on
> > the FSF website, actually comply with the DFSG.
> 
> It still contains an invariant section, though it's less severe than the
> GFDL type, as it can be removed.  I don't believe there's consensus that
> invariant sections in general are okay as long as they can be removed,
> though.

I think before Debian puts anything in main it should remove any
invariant sections from the work, just as we do with non-free source
code.  I once had a big old nasty flamewar with the FTP admins that
was tangentially related to this point, but the FTP admins and I agreed
that having non-free source code in a package's .orig.tar.gz was
unacceptable even if it wasn't "used for anything" and did not appear in
any binary packages.

In other words, invariant sections (small I, small S) are not DFSG-free,
but the removal of invariant sections from a work may be sufficient to
render it DSFG-free.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |      "There is no gravity in space."
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      "Then how could astronauts walk
branden@debian.org                 |       around on the Moon?"
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |      "Because they wore heavy boots."

Attachment: pgpmiLkMx9CSr.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: