Re: What RMS says about standards (was: [rms@gnu.org: Re: Questions regarding free documentation.]
On 14 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
>
> Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> I agree. I also say it applies to licenses as well. If not,
> >> please provide reasons (which I shall turn around and use for
> >> standards, then).
>
> Joey> In an ideal world it'd apply to licenses. We don't live in that
> Joey> world and if we insited on requiring this anyway, debian would
> Joey> not be a usable distribution (because it would contain ~ 0
> Joey> packages). Insiting on this for standards does not harm the
> Joey> usability of debian to the same degree.
>
> So now it is not a matter of principples, but of pragmaticism?
> In which case I say it is also in Debians interest to disseminate
> stgandards like the FSSTND, and documents like the social contract. I
> would certainly not like Debian to be known as the "distribution that
> refuses to incorporate standards".
>
> This seems really hypocritical, underhanded, and wishy washy
> of us to flip flop from a position of high priciples to fawning
> pragmaticism depending on which document we are talking about.
>
> I think the near consensus we achieved in the policy group
> (Marcus does not agree) about a verbatim area, and which I think is
> required anyway for the other document categories (attached below),
> is a good place to keep the standards and the GPL. It won't be in
> main, and that answers the demands from people who want nothing
> non-modifiable in main.
If we do go the 'verbatim' tag way (and Marcus went a long way to
dissuading me in his last email), then I think we should add something to
the social contract which encourages 'free' standards, and explains our
rationale for including non-free standards, while indicating that we very
much prefer free ones (RMS's point about GNU C went right home for me..).
However, Manoj, I completely agree with you about licenses. I also
genuinely believe that licenses should be free. As you say, all of
Marcus's arguments apply equally well to licenses.
One of us should put this to RMS, at some stage in the discussion.
My current opinion then, (subject to change after persuasive argument ;-)
is that we *should* create a verbatim section, but that we should make it
as small as possible, and indicate that it exists because we respect the
fact that standards are valuable to all software (i.e. including free
software), but make the point that we think free standards are far more
desirable.
Also, anyone who has been following the -devel thread about the LCS, I do
agree with Grisu (although I wouldn't use his language) that it looks bad
for Debian to be seen to be behind a 'non-free' project.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: