Re: GFDL
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
<snip>
> But Debian, I guess, is not interested in passing along the *message*,
No, that's not right. The majority of Debian people think that
understanding the message and following its principles is *more* important
than passing it along. Passing it along is great, but only if we adopt it
ourselves first.
<snip>
> And if the GFDL is not modified adequately, it will be appropriate to
> have a separate section for semi-free documentation.
Yeah, it's called "non-free". Feel free to come up with a better name which
everyone can agree on (unfortunately, "contrib" is used already). I'd be
absolutely in favor of changing the name to "non-dfsg-free". (Since it is
all freely redistributable, after all, this is a clarification.) Anyone
else agree?
> This might
> require some efforts to vet the contents and the invariant sections,
> but do we not spend efforts on checking the dependencies of GPL'd
> code? (for deciding whether they should go into main or contrib?)
>
> At least, the documents with verbatim licenses (like RFCs or the ones
> which come with emacs) can be put here.
Yes, they can! ;-) It's called 'non-free', but we could change its name!
> > I am quite happy if someone tries to take my words and use them for
> > another end. (Hell, they have in the past!)
>
> Most people would be unhappy when their *political* words are twisted.
Even when it's made clear that that isn't *their* opinion? Really?
> The problem arises when political speech gets intertwined with
> technical documentation.
>
> > I feel I have nothing to fear from open debate and people deciding
> > for themselves.
>
> But you overlook the possibility of people being misled by twisted
> words. Consequences of a misrepresented opinion are worse than that
Right, but misrepresenting opinions is not OK, and it's perfectly OK to make
a license which says "Do not represent any modified version as being my
opinion!"
> of malicious code inserted (mis)using liberty granted by the GPL.
>
> Which is why documentation should be treated differently from
> programs. And precisely why GFDL assigns `invariant' status to
> *Secondary* Sections alone.
>
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GFDL
- From: Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org>
- References:
- Re: GFDL
- From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <paivakil@vsnl.net>
- Re: GFDL
- From: MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>
- Re: GFDL
- From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <paivakil@vsnl.net>