On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:45:03AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions? > > > Why isn't it enough to worry about the license? > > > Because software isn't documentation? > > > Think of it this way: national security would be so much easier to > > maintain if we could just define cryptography as a weapon of war, > > equivalent to a nuclear device, "for the purposes of the import > > regulations". We all know how well that worked. > > > Similarly, it would be a lot easier to just define documentation to be > > software "for the purposes of the DFSG". But does it make sense? > > The alternative is that documentation will be treated as something we > are enjoined by the Social Contract from distributing at all. Debian > Will Remain 100% Free Software. This may have been poor phrasing on > the part of the authors, but there is *not* a clear consensus that this > is the case; which means that your only remedy is a GR to modify/clarify > the Social Contract and/or the DFSG, and until that happens, no amount > of debate here will prevent packages from being bounced out of main if > their documentation licenses do not meet the DFSG.
You know, I keep hearing this. Does this mean we should ditch the entirety of GCC's manuals, even old ones which weren't under the FDL, since the FSF has *clearly* indicated that *they* do not consider them to by software, since they created a *separate license* solely for documentation - which means that for their intent, documentation != software, and thus, Debian should respect that and not publish it, since it's not software at all? -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
