Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy <email@example.com> writes:
> Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.org> a tapoté :
>> Le ven 19/09/2003 à 17:39, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
>> > However, Debian has a pretty clear definition, according to supposedly
>> > Bruce Perens's statements. According to this clear definition, the
>> > official Debian Logo should go in non-free.
>> We don't ship the official (jar+swirl) Debian logo in main. If you find
>> it in a package, please report a serious bug against it.
> Good point.
> 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?
Acceptable for packaging in Debian? No, of course not.
Acceptable for other purposes? Sure.
> I'm a bit puzzled if you are about to claim that you truly _require_
> to be able to modify the GNU Manifesto while, at the same time, not
> giving the right to anyone to print an Official Debian Logo on a
> tshirt is something completely fine for you.
Nobody has suggested that the New York Times make its online edition
Free Software, as cool as that would be. Similarly, RMS is within his
rights and has a reasonable argument for keeping the GNU Manifesto
proprietary, non-free, and closed. I don't agree with it, but it's
clearly a point on which reasonable people could disagree. There's no
reason to think that such should be packaged by Debian, though.
> 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. For instance, if www.debian.org is not
> available to me (server down, no internet connectivity) and that I
> forgot the exact process, I'm not legally able to make that copy to a
> friend with the official logo.
> Well, it sounds as annoying than being forced to have 3 pages in a
> manual that anyway nobody is forced to read.
> And that's funny to claims that this logo is not part of main while
> it's the cover of the CD containing main. But sure, once printed, it's
> no longer "software" (in whatever sense of term).
Well, there's an "Intel Inside" logo on the machine which holds this
copy of Debian. The physical packaging is an accident performed on a
copy, and a legitimate separate work, much like the covers and
dustjackets of books.
> So in fact, a text/document have to be free only if it's on a
> computer? Is it the point?
No. Debian is committed to distributing free software. Free books
and free hardware are somebody else's problem. They all need to be
solved eventually, but this one is the problem being addressed right
here and right now.
> If Debian was making hardware (books!) in
> the future, it would be ok for Debian to provide, itself, along the with
> CD, proprietary manuals or even the GNU manifesto?
At that point, the Social Contract would have been amended to reflect
that Debian would no longer be "100% Free Software". It greatly
depends on what the new contract said... if it said "100% Free," then
no, the licence for the swirl would have to change, and Debian could
start publishing books.
> Is it important to be able to modify a text only when this text is
> typed on the computer? All the reasons mentioned about how it's
> important to be able to modify a non technical text in the manual are
> only valid when the manual is not printed?
Of course not. But why does this matter to you?
> It's very hard to understand for someone that consider computers as
> "just" tools. For me, printed or not, a Program must be Free
> Software, the technical parts of a manual must be Free Software.
I quite agree with you.
> Fortunately, Debian only ships software... It saves time.
> (PS: I think that the purpose of this non-DFSG logo is perfectly
> Mathieu Roy
> Not a native english speaker:
Brian T. Sniffen email@example.com