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


Mahesh T. Pai wrote:

> 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.

> 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

> 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: