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


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.

Jan Schumacher
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: