Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:34:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Hamish Moffatt]
> > That Debian "expects that simply providing the source alongside ..."
> > does not appear to make this non-free. It might make be inconvenient
> > for us and/or require us to change the ftp-master scripts, but that
> > doesn't seem to affect its freeness.
> One must remember, however, that while a "mere convenience" issue for
> our users may be a non-issue for Debian, a "mere convenience" issue
> that affects Debian directly is very relevant.
> Nothing in the SC or DFSG requires Debian to accept any software that
> comes along and adheres to the letter of the DFSG. As a hypothetical,
> if the software required Debian's FTP servers to keep the source
> available for 10 years, unconditionally, we'd probably refuse to ship
> that software on the grounds that that would be a PITA. Likewise, I
> think that "FDL-licensed content may be DFSG-free, but considering the
> practical problems it causes us, we'd rather not ship any of it" is a
> consistent and reasonable position to take.
Indeed. However Aj's proposal actually argues that the transparent
copies clause makes these documents non-free. That doesn't seem to be
justified. I don't think Manoj's position statement document adds any
additional justification either.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>