Re: documentation x executable code
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:01:31AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > I'm not aware of any other non-free bits of data in Debian with the
> > > status of "we have absolutely no choice", other than license texts, so
> > > nothing else
> >
> > i don't believe that we do have "absolutely no choice". it might be an
> > extremely unpalatable choice, but it's still a choice.
>
> There is no comparison between the choices available for licenses ("useless
> system" vs "make an exception") and standards documents ("a useful system
> that just doesn't happen to mirror standards documents that you can get
> anywhere" vs "make an exception"). The two topics are irrelevant to
> each other.
according to your particular degree of zealotry...but your zealotry is more
intense than what was common when we wrote the DFSG, so it's entirely possible
that even crazier lunatics will arrive in the future (encouraged, no doubt, by
the "successes" of the current crop of loonies).
the point here is "what makes your version of zealotry any more correct than
those of someone even more extreme?". you're just making arbitrary
exceptions, and selective application of the rules. if you want an exception,
then define it - don't just leave it up to common-sense because that doesn't
work in debian (or pretty nearly anywhere else for that matter). some
pedantic turd will inevitably come along and twist your common-sense words so
that they mean something you didn't mean at all.
> > i just want people to stop being hypocritically pedantic about the GFDL, and i
> > want people to stop manipulating debian into blackmailing the FSF over this
> > stupid issue.
> >
> > GFDL docs *are* free, except in the minds of wannabe-Holier-Than-Stallman
> > zealots, and even they can't come up with any *credible* arguments why it
> > should be considered non-free. the best they can do is come up with ludicrous
> > hypotheticals that "prove" that it is possible to misuse/misapply the GFDL (or
> > any license) in such a way that it invalidates the license, making that one
> > particular work both non-free and non-distributable.
>
> If your best rebuttal to [1] is "wannabe-Holier-Than-Stallman zealots",
> then I don't think any further response is necessary.
"wannabe-Holier-Than-Stallman zealots" is not a rebuttal, it's merely a
succinct description of the anti-GFDL crowd.
> > > With everything else, Debian has a choice--and GR 2004-003 shows that Debian
> > > has, in fact, made that choice: to not include non-free standards documents.
> >
> > that's not relevant. nobody has yet proven that GFDL licensed texts are
> > non-free, and debian has not yet voted on the issue. claiming that the GFDL
> > is non-free is not a statement of fact, it is merely a statement of opinion.
>
> Invariant sections can not be modified. The DFSG requires that modification
> be allowed. QED.
invariant sections can be modified by patch. the DFSG allows that
restriction. QED.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: