Re: What RMS says about standards (was: [rms@gnu.org: Re: Questions regarding free documentation.]
On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 12:30:03AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Can someone please run by me again why they think we need a new
> category `verbatim' or whatever alongside main, contrib, non-free ?
It is pretty well agreed (I think) that Official CD's should carry even
immutable standards that wouldn't pass the DFSG. Whether we call these
packages "Debian", and exactly where in the directory structure they should
go was not resolved. The failure to reach concensus was probably due to
consideration of the other immutable documents (software licenses in
particular).
> I agree strongly with whoever it was that said that this was just
> trying to duck the issue. Either we are happy with a particular kind
> of documentation being more restricted than DFSG-free or we are not.
>
> If we are happy with this then it should go in main. If we are not
> then it should go in non-free.
Recalling Manoj's immutable document classes (I think I missed 2 of
them), these are my suggestions using the existing distributions:
Software documentation: non-free
Licence texts: main
Standards: contrib
Opinions: ?
Artwork: non-free
Many people have suggested a fourth distribution verbatim/ to include
several of these. There was particular concern over weakening the licensing
requirements of contrib/, hence the need for a new verbatim/ distribution
that would contain standards, opinions, and free-standing software licenses
like the GPL. There was also concern over distancing the GPL from the
packages covered by it. verbatim/ would not contain software and would be
considered part of Debian.
Whether the legal text of a software license can be immutable was
debated. The Berne convention has a clause punting on the issue, so
presumably the signatory nations couldn't agree either, and copyright of
legal texts is subject to local legislation.
-Drake
Reply to: