Re: GFDL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 22 September 2003 08:49, Andreas Barth wrote:
> If the whole docu would be DFSG-free, than there would be no cause to
> remove polical statements.
On Wednesday 24 September 2003 01:12, Richard Stallman wrote:
> According to Don Armstrong, a non-modifiable text cannot under any
> circumstances be considered DFSG-free, so it would have to be removed
> from the manual. Others have (it appears) said the same thing.
These two statements above do not contradict one another. A /non-modifiable/
text could not be included in Debian, a /modifiable/ one would most likely
be. That is, I believe what people have been saying:
On Monday 22 September 2003 20:21, Don Armstrong wrote:
> If the political essays were DFSG free, the maintainers would (most
> likely) be happy to distribute them without modifying them. However,
> because they are not DFSG free, we cannot distribute them at all.
> Therefore, the maintainer tries to serve our users by distributing the
> largest subset that is Free, which forces him to exise the non-Free
> bits.
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 09:30, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> If they were both removable and modifiable (so not invariant), they would
> be DFSG-free and nobody would have any reason to remove them.
>
> Even if they were removable but not modifiable, they would still not be
> DFSG-free, so the only way to get a DFSG-free document would be to have
> them removed.
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 01:06, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> Yes, because any such essay would not be DFSG free, and DFSG free-ness
> is a prerequisite for inclusion of software[1] in main. For the
> political statements to remain, they would have to be both removable
> *and* modifiable.
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 01:06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> > Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
> > be modified.
>
> DFSG prohibits such unmodifiable content. If the whole doc was DFSG,
> there wouldn't *be* any essays that cannot be modified.
... etc.
On Wednesday 24 September 2003 01:12, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Having seen a lot of rigid dogmatism here recently, I can hardly
> expect Debian not to be rigidly dogmatic on this issue too.
I can not share your observation of rigid dogmatism on Debian's side of the
debate. However, if FSF or GNU texts were included in a completely DFSG-free
manual, what you call dogmatism would probably prompt most maintainers to
defend its inclusion, should that be necessary.
Regards
Jan Schumacher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/c8RL4cR0MEP0sUQRAgxmAKCHHOdL8JFb2E04imYd402+sP26FACgs3Ed
k8K1Mki6rv0ELNCD9XyOA8E=
=L+ng
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: