Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:15:06PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 07:39:30 -0400, Evan Prodromou escribía:
> > Probably another point worth making is that "being in Debian" or "being
> > DFSG-free" is not equivalent to "being good" or "being righteous".
> > [...]
> Yes, that's worthy of an entry in the DFSG FAQ, only not in the
> "documentation licensing FAQ" part I'm drafting :-)
How about this, more to the point? "If the author or standards
organization is unconvinced by this argument, and does not want to
allow modifications, it's not a tragedy. Standards documents are
useful for programmers but are by no means indispensable for Debian.
Users who absolutely need a standards document can get it elsewhere,
or they can conveniently get it through apt from the non-free
I think if the only answer we have for the idea of unmodifiable
documents is "oh, but _all_ docs should be modifiable", we miss an
important point. "Docs that aren't modifiable don't _have_ to be in
Debian" is another important answer. It's _nice_ having verbatim
distribution RFCs available in an apt archive, but it's not worth
changing our policies.