This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:29:51PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > > > It does prohibit code reuse, which I think is one of the things under > > discussion here. Code under this license can't be mixed with code under > > the GPL, as I'm sure you're aware. Similarly one could say the GFDL > > does not prohibit modification of the program, merely of *part of the > > manual*. > > The DFSG does not say that permission to modify can be limited to programs. > The Social Contract has been amended to say that all works we distribute in > Debian need to be held to the same standard. By what standard should it be > ok to distribute manuals that we can't modify to taste? We already agree to distribute text we can't modify - that is, the licenses and attributions and the advertising clauses and so forth. Additionally, we allow pieces of *code* we can't modify to taste - the GPL clause that says 'you must display the license when run interactively'. We also explicitly say in the DFSG that we hold these restrictions to still be free, since we explicitly name the GPL and the 4 clause BSD as examples of free licenses. Being unable to excise or modify a piece of secondary literature is onerous and inconvenient, but I am not sure it is sufficiently different to things we already accept to make it non DFSG free. I am not arguing that the GFDL is a good license, mind you - I think there are many silly things in it. I am also not yet convinced whether it is free or not; I am working my way through that decision here. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature