Re: Bug#202723: perl-doc: Non-free manpage included
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:34:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:55:55AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Guido Trotter <email@example.com>
> > > It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
> > So it does. It will have to be relicensed or removed.
> I concur. Alternatively, the package containing it could be moved to
Move perl to non-free?, things seem to be getting out of hand
here lately. I expect sarge+1 to not contain any of: gcc,
emacs, perl, anything written in C, C++ or perl, anything
needing an interpreter or compiler written in C, C++ or perl.
This effectively excludes almost everything except the text of the
social contract, the text of some other Debian documents, the
KJV bible and perhaps a few more tidbits. Nothing else is
pure enough for citizen Robespierre and the committee.
This manpage (and a few others) are very important parts of the
perl package documentation. Separating it from perl is a
non-option from the perspective of users.
I believe that this file should be considered as acceptable
under the following interpretation of the DFSG:
DFSG 1 says that the freedoms need only apply in the context of
larger diverse distributions, and need not apply to individual
files or even packages when those files or packages are taken
out of context. At least this appears to be the only meaningful
reading of the phrase "...as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several different
The license on perlreftut and several other key perl manpages
says that when not taken out of context, the file may be used
under the Artistic license.
DFSG 10 says that the Artistic license can be assumed to meet
A scared used
This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.