Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
I'm not saying we have to do that. I'm only saying we have to decide
whether or not the rules for declaring documentation to be free should
be the same as the rules for declaring computer programs to be free [...]
Please note that they are not called the "Debian Free Computer Program
Guidelines".
And yet whoever wrote them seemed to believe "software" refers to programs.
Let's see how many times "program" is referred to as thing being freely
licensed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)
1. Free Redistribution
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license
^^^^^^^^
may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
^^^^^^^^^^^
source code as well as compiled form.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original
software.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the
source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The
^^^^^^^^^^^
license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified
source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name
or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The
Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or
binary, from being modified.)
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
^^^^^^^^^^^
specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from
^^^^^^^^^^^
being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
7. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by
those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and
^^^^^^^^^^^
used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the
program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should
^^^^^^^
have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian
system.
9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must
not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [ implicitly, the thing being specified is
part of this category]
software.
10. Example Licenses
The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses that
we consider "free".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I count 12 places (11 if you exclude the implicit one) where the author(s)
of the DFSG seems to regard "software" to be interchangeable with "software".
The purpose of declaring "software" to be all-encompassing is to support this
false syllogism:
Debian distributes only free software.
Debian [desires to/does in fact] distribute free documentation.
Therefore, free documentation must be free software.
Lynn
Reply to: