Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Joe Wreschnig <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
> > distribute something else than software.
> The social contract says Debian will remain 100% free software. Not that
> Debian's software will remain 100% free. Bruce Perens has already
> stepped up to clarify that this is in fact the intent of the DFSG - that
> it applies to *everything* in Debian.
"We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software"
This is from Clause 1 of the Social Contract. It is ambiguous.
> If you think that Debian's software should remain 100% free, but
> Debian's non-software, if such a thing exists, does not need to be free,
> then propose a GR. debian-legal is not the place to propose GRs.
No need for a GR.
> > > Oh, and where the GFDL is concerned, what you apparently mean to say is,
> > > "I see nothing wrong with requiring all distributors to also
> > > distribute Free Software advocacy". I do: it's a restriction on
> > > freedom.
> > Free software is based on restrictions because they are needed to
> > guaranty freedom. Free software obliges me to publish the source
> > code with binaries. So, if I understand correctly, I'm not free
> > to do what I want with my source?
> You are free to do whatever you want with *your* source, just not
> someone else's source.
> In situations where you are dealing with someone else's source, the GPL
> restricts you only insofar as it makes you give everyone else the same
> rights you had. The GFDL does not do this, because you can add invariant
> sections, and take away others' rights.
This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not.
> > Free software advocacy is such a restriction I do consider as
> > acceptable.
> There are many things in this world more important, I think, than free
> software. Many people would agree with me about most of then (ending war
> and hunger, providing universal education, an end to racism, and so on).
> If we consider free software advocacy an acceptable restriction because
> we believe free software to be important, do we also accept advocacy for
> all of these as acceptable restrictions?
> What about anti-nuclear power advocacy? What about pro-racism advocacy?
(against, I'm not dealing with GFDL)
This would be a case per case study. As an individual, I would study
and decide what can be kept or not.
> The GFDL's invariant sections are not restricted to things you agree
> with. If a useful program's GFDLd manual has an invariant pro-racism
> diatribe in it, will you distribute the manual?
> What if it has a pro-proprietary software diatribe?
We are no longer dealing with GFDL here. Please follow the thread
> > > > > that a "verbatim copying only" license is Free?)
> > >
> > > > I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be
> > > > considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall
> > > > not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you
> > > > wrote it, and so on.
> > > > There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom.
> > >
> > > We shall not distribute it.
> > This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share.
> So Debian doesn't have the freedom to *not* distribute GNU manuals? This
> makes no sense.
This discussion was not about GFDL manuals.