Re: Cover texts, GFDL, and Debian logos
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 12:02, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 11:34:59AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > How is the Debian logo so different from "front cover texts"?
>
> Because it is not distributed in Debian 'main' ?
Is this a valid response? Does DFSG mean "what goes in main"?
> Because I can not think of any occurence where it would hurt
> to just replace it with another logo?
So our definition of whether something is "Free enough" depends on how
much it "hurts" to replace (like, we have Gnumeric now, so it doesn't
hurt to replace MS Excel, so lets distribute that)?
Why should our logo not be Free?
Why should others not be able to distribute our logo? (For example, it
would be nice to have a "local-mirror" package which sets up a nice
replica (perhaps excluding mailing lists) of debian.org.)
> Because it is a god damn logo?
Hmm... your analysis of the fact it's a logo is correct at least. :)
Why shouldn't my 7 year old son be able to modify the Debian logo and
show his version to his school class, or sell it to somone?
---
It seems perhaps my question needs to be phrased like this:
Is a logo in any way similar to front cover texts?
> > Why is documentation not different from software?
>
> Why _is_ it different then software?
Why _is_ the logo different from software? Perhaps you say it's not; if
it is the same then refer to my question above "Why should our logo not
be free?".
> I tried to discuss this at the LDP mailing list before, but
> I got no satisfying answers. Why do some documentation authors who
> write their documentation about and with Free Software think that
> _their_ work is so much better, sacred, whatever, than the software they
> use? I would really be glad to see one good answer to this...
If you are referring to non-free body-text of technical documentation, I
can only agree with you.
> > What about philosophical documentation?
>
> Yeah, why is it different?
So should the GPL preamble be modifiable?
> > What about our social contract, our developer guidelines, etc?
> > - Are they free software?
> > - Are they free documentation?
> > - Are they free for others to modify and distribute?
> > - And are they distributed in Debian "main"?
>
> These are the only questions I found mildly interesting.
> Go and check it.
They are "Free" it seems.
Are there other parts of Debian that are non-free?
> And what has this to do with -devel? Go to -legal, -doc or -project.
Sorry.
> [Sorry for any offenses, in a bad mood today]
:) none taken.
Reply to: