Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:09:15 +1100, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of a
>> GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG
>> or the social contract?
> because the GFDL is not a non-free license.
> GFDL invariant sections do not make a document non-free. see DFSG
> patch clause.
>> Specifically, I am looking at the SC:
>> >> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>>
>> And the DFSG:
>> >> The license must allow modifications and derived works,
>> >> and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms
>> >> as the license of the original software.
>>
>> We would need to change the must allow modifications bit, as I see
>> it -- since a license attached to a work must allow modifications
>> to the work, as it is currently stated. (I do not consider the
>> license to be part of the work).
> no, it's not necessary to change anything.
> DFSG patch clause.
> read it.
> explains all.
> restricting modifications to original + patch only is explicitly
> permitted.
But one is supposed to be able to distribute the patched
derived work. In this case, I should be able to have the orig.tar.gz
contain the invariant, the diff.gz contain stuff to remove the
invariant, and the .deb not contain it.
That seems not permitted.
manoj
--
Bringing computers into the home won't change either one, but may
revitalize the corner saloon.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: