Re: documentation eq software ?
Mathieu Roy wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> a tapoté :
>> So you classify some forms of political statement as more worthwhile?
>> Which political statements should Debian accept? Which should it reject?
>
>Debian already accept political statements. Please, a "social contract"
>cannot be apolitical!
>When you propose rules for a society, a social entity, via a social
>contract, you're are indeed trying to rule your *polis*.
We include the social contract under a license that allows it to be
modified or removed, and the resulting distribution redistributed. It's
included because we think it provides a service to users without
restricting the guarantees we make within it. A copy of the GNU
manifesto that was modifiable would be redistributed in the same way
without complaint.
>> No, a political statement does not document the software. It tells us
>> something about the author's motivations.
>
>Which can be considered as an information about the software.
Sure, it's information about the software. It's not documentation about
the software.
>> Making a political statement within the software does exactly the
>> same. Why do you believe that one should be protected and the other
>> shouldn't?
>
>Because a software is not a documentation.
No. In the specific case of making a political statement, why should we
protect the author's opinions in documentation and not in programs? You
claimed that invarient sections were needed because the author's
opinions might be misrepresented - this could only be a reasonable
opinion if you believe that misrepresenting the author's opinions is
always bad, which would have to hold for programs as well. So, why do
you not hold a consistent position here?
>Side note: I never said that 'political statement within the
>documentation should be protected' but I said that I understand and
>think acceptable and harmless why some people want to protect some
>political statement in a documentation. This is pretty different.
Not really, no. It limits Freeness - the only way it could be "harmless"
is if you believe that the potential harm caused is significant compared
to the freedom lost.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: