Re: documentation x executable code
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:38:31PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> IMO all three together are, as i said, sufficient reason to be a bit more
> tolerant about licensing for documentation.
I disagree, and I also think it's insane to claim that "a bit more tolerant"
includes "allow the license to prohibit changing it entirely". (We're not
going anywhere, so let's conclude that we disagree on this.)
> > 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.
> 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.
[1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml#annotated
> > 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.
(tip: if the strongest response you have is to point at license texts, don't
bother)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: