Le jeu 07/08/2003 à 23:01, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : > > (a waste of time IMO, since it should mean the same > > thing). > > Are you 100% sure whether all Debian Developers agree on that? If so, > I'll shut up. Even if we end up with a different definition (which is unlikely as the DFSG are simple and can be applied to documentation as well), I fail to see how that definition could consider as free a document with invariant sections, or a document which cannot be copied to an encrypted filesystem. > You can't know whether it's currently acceptable. About 1000 people have > agreed upon the DFSG, since they agreed that software, not > documentation, should be free. Although I can't come up with an example, > I don't think it's impossible that there are some Debian developers out > there who earn their living by providing non-free documentation for the > free software they write. There is the non-free archive for non-free documentation. Without arguing whether this is desirable or not (and I believe it is not), this is non-free, full stop. We still distribute those documentations in the non-free archive, so why should we try by any means to get them included into main and say they are free while they are not ? > In fact, if the debian-legal group were to decide all by itself that > software and documentation are essentially the same thing, I'm afraid a > fork would be much more likely. It is not the same thing. The question is whether the definition of freedom should be the same for both. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=