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

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 11:35:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:

> > So does this mean I can include my shareware fonts and my
> > for-educational-use-only documentation in my next package upload?  The
> > software is free, so I guess it's ok to let these other things into main
> > along with it -- right?

>   It seems obvious to you that documentation is software. It is not
>   to me. Simply.

No, the conclusion that documentation cannot be meaningfully
distinguished from software in licensing is one I've reached after much
thought and much reading of debian-legal.  However, you are insisting
that documentation should be held to a different standard of freedom, so
I am asking:  what is that standard?  If modifiability is not a
requirement for text documents, is redistributability still a
requirement?  Can the license demand payment if you read it?  *Why* is
text different from source code, where freedom is concerned?

We already have a reason to believe it is not different, for Debian's
purposes: the Social Contract, which says Debian will remain 100% Free
Software.  If you disagree, the burden of evidence is with you to
demonstrate why there is a difference between software and documentation
where Debian is concerned, and why such a difference does not mean that
we should simply *not* be distributing documentation in main at all.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpW2Tv5dOJNF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: