The repeatedly-confirmed GRs, the current Social Contract, debian-legal consensus, and the stated opinion of the etch release team, are that everything in 'main', with the special exception of license texts which constitute the licenses to works in 'main', has to satisfy the DFSG. The DFSG requires that everyone be given permission to create modified copies.
> And for whatever it's worth, as long as I'm maintaining the packages, > these files will almost certainly not be removed unless there's some > overwhelmingly convincing reason, like debian-legal tells me it needs > to be done, We've done that. > there's a successful General Resolution passed on a > relevant topic, That's happened. Do you need another, even more specific, one? If you do, I'll be happy to oblige if I ever get through NM. > or they're removed from the upstream... Well, that's not happening right now it looks like. :-P Please remove these from 'main' ASAP. Thank you. They can be placed in a package in "non-free" if you wish, as they appear to have licenses which make them distributable. It would be good to get this done as soon as possible, so that there is a releaseable version of emacs in etch. Alternatively, you could initiate a GR to overrule the Social Contract with respect to these works. Oh, FYI, don't pay too much attention to Michael Edwards. He has misinterpreted the meaning of the "integrity of the work" provisions in French and other law. Those provisions do not restrict creation of modified copies, which can most certainly be permitted by copyright license. They were originally designed for physical, non-replicable works, such as a painting on canvas (and the US law specifically applies only to such works) -- you can't buy the original Mona Lisa in order to deface it, basically, but you can do whatever you want with your photograph of it. Misattribution is also a red herring; we never allow misattribution, and if you create a modified essay you absolutely mustn't claim that it's by the original author. He's also flatly wrong in claiming that the current consensus position (all non-license content must generally permit creation of modified copies in order to be DFSG-free) would require the removal of all "artistic" or "polemical" works; these can be licensed just as freely as anything else, and the "anarchism" package is the classic example. Jerome Marant's claim that the articles are "logically non modifiable without the consent of their author" is wrong, and is apparently due to the same point of confusion which also comes up when we discuss making standards documents "modifiable": you can't modify the original, but you should be allowed to create a derivative work, a modified copy. Consider the Declaration of Independence and these famous "modified versions": the Declaration of Sentiments, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The "modifications" did not change the original Declaration of Independence. "Modified versions" of these essays and speeches would likewise not change RMS's words, and would not pretend to be RMS's words. They would be different essays which used some of RMS's rhetoric and style. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
