On 26-Jan-99 Jules Bean wrote:
> Hi,
Hello.
> *Please*, if you have strong views on this subject, at least skim the
> above threads, and those which follow on related issues, before entering
> the debate. It was very drawn out last time. It is an important issue,
> and I don't think we should vote on a new DFSG which doesn't address it.
It *is* possible to have these issues addressed in another document. Maybe,
one that describes the conditions for all files that get to go into main. For
software, it can point to the DFSG, for other files, it can handle as is
fitting (and we don't know what that is, yet)...
> 1) Technical documentation should be 'free' in the GPL sense.
> This was widely held by all participants in the debate.
Ok. Wait.. in the GPL sense or in the DFSG-software-traditional sense? ie.
with rename clauses and patch clauses and the such.
>
> 2) 'Artistic works' need not be free.
> This suggested to us the creation of a new section in debian,
> 'verbatim', in which works in certain classes could be distributed.
> The line between documentation and 'works of art' may not be clear,
> and there may be a mixture in one document.
*require* seperate files...??
> 3) Licenses are generally not free
> This is more or less a fact, actually. The GPL does not give the
> permission to modify, notwithstanding the fact that some other licenses
> are very clearly derived works.
As it *has* to be...
> 4) Some good, 'free' software has non-free documentation
> This poses a dilemma for our principles.
Can't. If it's part of the upstream source, the documentation needs to be free.
> Our conclusions, IMO, should be included either in the new DFSG, if we
> accept it, or incorporated into the current, if not.
As for the draft, point 4 is covered. The current draft says:
These guidelines are intended to be applied to software programs, that
is, machine-readable programs that instruct a computer how to perform
specific tasks, its source code, and any other items included with the
original source distribution.
The line "....and any other items..." is intended to cover documentation that's
part of the distributed software but not require third-party written works to
be covered under the software license.
> ..putting on flame suit...
No need, yet. Wish it wasn't needed at all.
--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <>< *
* -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------*
* Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 *
* <gecko@benham.net> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++*
* KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- *
* Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ *
* <gecko@debian.org> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ *
* -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------*
=========================================================================
Attachment:
pgpXJTPoq4ci7.pgp
Description: PGP signature