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

Re: Why licenses *are* free (was: Re: Why I don't share Manojs fears.



Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 	Sorry. The same reasoning applies to the FSSTND. I know of no
>  standard out there that would be allowed in main; that should be
>  enough reason too. 

The FHS is free.  I seem to remember that requests from our side were
one of the reasons its license is different from that of the FSSTND.

> 	We should not flip-flop from a high moral ground and accept
>  anything pragmatism based on what document we look at.

I think we should.  Our goal is to produce a 100% free operating
system.  There is no sense in having "100% free" if we do not
have an operating system.  We can declare a goal (such as the GPL
itself being free) without having to achieve it immediately.

> 	We can say that an immutable document, bundled with software,
>  does not prevent the inclusion of the software in main. (Software
>  programs can nver go in verbatim). So, packages can happily include
>  the GPL with no changes. But a stand alone package, (say, containing
>  /usr/doc/copyright/GPL), should go in verbatim. 

I don't think we can do that.  Already the practice of shipping debs
without a copy of the GPL is legally dubious; fortunately we can point
at the copy in base-files, which is in the same archive and is
guaranteed to be installed on all systems.

We can still adopt this rule, if we change policy so that GPL'd packages
must include a copy of the GPL, rather than referring to it.

An alternative might be a technical change to dpkg: "shared" files,
which can be installed by any number of packages, as long as their
contents (md5sum) are identical.  That would allow us to ship the
GPL with every package, while still having only one copy on the system.
(Still in /usr/doc/copyright/GPL, presumably)

I think this feature would have value in other contexts too; it might
eliminate the smaller "-common" packages.

Richard Braakman


Reply to: