On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Florian Weimer wrote: > Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> writes: >> And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the >> first clause of the Social Contract). > > Not quite. Texts of licenses and logos typically fail DFSG tests. The text of licenses (and copyrights) under which a package is licensed should be the only things in Debian that do not meet the DFSG, at least as far as I'm concerned. > Lots of graphics (and probably some audio material, too) come in a > form that can be considered "source code" (because it's not the > preferred form of doing modifications, e.g. a flattened image vs. a > layered one). If it's the only form available, then suddenly it's the prefered form for modification. However, in cases like this, maintainers and upstream authors should really attempt to keep the prefered form for modification around. In cases where it hasn't been done, we should work with upstream authors to make sure it happens in the future. > And what about research papers? Do you want to ban them, too, even > if they are directly relevant to one of Debian's packages and help to > understand how the software works? Again, in cases where appropriate, we should have access to the prefered form of modification for those research papers. If not, they should merely be referenced so they can be retrieved. The fact that some things in Debian have slipped through the cracks of both the upstream and the package maintainers doesn't mean that we should blissfully ignore them. Please, file bugs against packages that contain material that is not free under the DFSG when you find them, and suggest what the package and upstream maintainers can do about it. Don Armstrong -- I'd sign up in a hot second for any cellular company whose motto was: "We're less horrible than a root canal with a cold chisel." -- Cory Doctorow http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpd8vxDXN4YP.pgp
Description: PGP signature