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

Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
> there are several licenses which have some small problems (choice of
> venue, etc...) and that are declared non-free; Debian should make a
> clearer difference between small and big problems.

Licenses which do not comply with the DFSG do not comply with the
DFSG, and therefore cannot be included in main. There are clauses
which only just barely cross the line, and there are clauses which
can't see the line at all.

When we discuss them, we can discern between the two cases, but it's
not appropriate for Debian to bend its own guidelines to allow in
works which do not meet the requirements of the DFSG simply because we
think it would be nice to include them.

The small problems are generally solvable by working with the license
author or the copyright holder to change the drafting of the licence
to be DFSG free; we do this all the time. The big problems tend to be
irreconcilable political or legal differences.

If you think that the problem is a small one, and the work should be
included, please help work with upstream authors and license writers
to create licences which are obviously DFSG Free.

Don Armstrong

Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd
take MONTHS to make up the difference, and meanwhile Debian users will
be fleeing to SLACKWARE.

And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE? 
 -- Matt Zimmerman in <gYuD3D.A.ayC.nGB39@murphy>

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: