Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > I personally think that it is a mistake to try to cut users off from
> > non-free software by external diktat and that Debian gets it right by
> > offering the choice to not have it in your apt sources. In the long
> > run free software should win on its technical merits.
>
> Quite apart from all of the above, I think both organizations have good
> and rational reasons for modifying the GNU FDL and dropping non-free,
> respectively -- reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with
> promoting d?tente between the organizations. This isn't to say that
> there aren't hard-liners in each organization who oppose such minor, if
> noteworthy, alterations in strategy -- there certainly may be.
>
Both of the above are very valid points. Can I throw in a marginally
off the wall suggestion, which might potentially solve a couple of
perennial problems for Debian?
As we've found, the DFSG was intended to cover all software.
Documentation wasn't differentiated by Bruce - see the archives for
the link to the posting by Bruce on debian-legal which confirmed this.
Virtually all of the documentation then was GPL.
Ten years have passed: we've become a lot more clear as to what is
DFSG-free and DFSG-non-free. The "documentation is/is not software
within the DFSG" thread has been discussed to death. There have also
been discussions about the relevance of e.g. the anarchism package
in main and various suggestions about setting up a "data" repository.
I suggest two additional documents be drafted, each almost identical
to the DFSG. The DFDocG and the DFDataG (for the sake of example
names).
A non-Debian layman would possibly say that "docs you can't modify
that are intended to be free for use are still OK to use" - thus:
The DFDocG should state that there is a class of documentation which
satisfies the DFSG in every respect save modification. The DFDocG
should allow for a non-modifiable docs exception to the DFSG and provide
that documentation that is not freely modifiable should be acceptable
to Debian within the DDocG. This would cover the GFDL and might cover
some of the corner cases on Open Content / TLDP licences and the like.
It would also cover, for example, the text of the King James Version of
the Bible (currently in main) and docs like the US constitution which
used to be included in BSD.
[alternatively]
Create a section in contrib called non-mod-docs. Change the definition
of contrib slightly to permit Debian packages to reference non-mod-docs.
Similarly for data. Either create a DFDataG which would cover
non-modifiable data e.g. mapping data / tide tables / mathematical
constants and provide an exception to the DFSG for non-modifiable data
or modify the contrib definition much as above in respect of
non-mod-docs.
In any event, and whether clause 5 gets dropped or not - the whole
discussion about the future of non-free has focussed people's minds
on what is actually _in_ non-free and that can only be a good thing.
Andy
Reply to: