Re: What RMS says about standards
Joseph Carter writes:
> The software is free because it's software and the documentation is
> "submit any changes you'd like upstream but don't distrubute modded
> versions" to protect the integrity of the document. Then what? Are you
> going to tear apart a package in main that shouldn't be torn apart just
> to put the document portion in a verbatim dist?
If the document is a license it should stay in the package (but a copy
could go in verbatim if the license permits). Otherwise the document
should go in verbatim if feasible, or else stay in the package. The
package might have to go in non-free, depending on how important the
document is to it.
> Does policy even allow recommends on packages in main to packages outside
> main?
I'm assuming that verbatim is a subset of main.
> People talking about putting licenses in this verbatim dist should Stop
> Right Now. We can't legally do that in many cases..
What is the legal difference between verbatim and /usr/doc/copyright?
> Besides, I have already pointed out that because of what a license is, it
> CAN be modified with or without permission and applied to another
> product.
Yes, you have said that. Provide some evidence. If you are correct, all
licenses are free (including the GPL, which carries its own non-free
license) and so can remain in main without offending anyone.
> Take the BSD license, we have seen 2, 3, and 4 clause versions. The 4
> clause version is of course the actual BSD license, but the 2 and 3
> clause versions are used because people don't like that 4th clause and
> don't want it to apply to their software. The BSD license grants no
> permission to do this.
The BSD license grants no permission to make copies of the BSD license at
all, except when attached to BSD source. Thus if you assume that UC has
not granted permission to copy the BSD license, all copying of it or any
substantial portion thereof when not attached to BSD source infringes. If
you assume that UC has granted copying permission, it is ok to copy parts
unless UC has specifically forbidden that.
> If it were copyright violation to change this license, then ANY package
> under a "BSD style" license which isn't the full advertising clause
> version of the BSD license would not be able to be part of Debian.
It is quite possible for a license to be "BSD style" without infringing
UC's copyright.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Reply to: