On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 12:29:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:05:07AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > But we *can* make people happy in this respect. It's possible for the > > GFDL to achieve its goal without preventing this use case. > > I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are > the same freedoms required for software. I think the best way to fix > the current situation is to propose the Debian Free Documentation > Guidelines and modify the SC appropriately. More on this when I have > a first draft. We have tried for a very long time to come up with anything vaguely sensible and got nothing. If this proposed DFDG permits restrictions that aren't allowed by the DFSG, make sure you include an explanation of why this should be allowed for 'documentation', why it should *not* be allowed for 'non-documentation', and how to distinguish between packages where it should and should not be allowed. Don't expect much sympathy if you can't give all three of those. A lot of people would be very interested in seeing such a document that actually makes sense. The sticking point has always been that nobody knows how to write one, and it's not for lack of trying. Everybody so far has failed; they either get the DFSG duplicated, or a blanket grant to include anything in main. As best we know so far, there is no useful point between these (unmodifiable or unredistributable documents are not considered useful). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature