[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> However, does not it mean that Debian recognize that in some case
> some "software" (in the large sense) can be non-DFSG and still
> acceptable?

Aceptable for what? We have our share of non-DFSG software in
non-free, and we haven't gone on a holy war to rid redmond of it's tax
base. However, we are largely against including things that are not
free under the DFSG in main.

> And, finally, if I correctly understood this page, if I get an
> official Debian CD, with this Logo as cover, I'm not able to provide
> a copy of this official Debian CD unless I completely follow a
> process documented at www.debian.org.

You can excise the logo, and make that copy.

The use of the official logo is simply a form of brand recognition. If
you see it on a package with cds in it, then someone has followed the
official Debian method of producing official release cds.

> Well, it sounds as annoying than being forced to have 3 pages in a
> manual that anyway nobody is forced to read.

You can remove the logo. You can't remove those 3 pages. See the

> So in fact, a text/document have to be free only if it's on a
> computer?

In my opinion, no; it should be free no matter where it is. However,
that is totally outside the scope of Debian's current realm of
operations and the DFSG. If we were to get into that, we'd probably
have to decide in -project what we were going to do about it.

Don Armstrong

Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make
you miserable enough, maybe you'll stop using email entirely. Once
enough people do that, then there'll be no legitimate reason left for
anyone to run an SMTP server, and the spam problem will be solved.

Craig Dickson <crdic@pacbell.net>


Attachment: pgpEdPYjs7l07.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: