Le Saturday 25 October 2008 10:56:56 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit : > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Could you please elaborate here? The DFSG does not require us to have or > > ship source code for non-program works, and if documentation is being > > rejected on the basis of a *source* requirement (as distinct from a > > licensing issue), then I think we have a problem. > > Well, we ftpmasters and assistants routinely REJECT packages > containing binary components without source, eg. PDF documentation. We > base this policy on the DFSG as explained in > http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 which very clearly states > that documentation needs to comply with the DFSG.
The resolution states that GFDL licence does not fit for main, mainly because it has invariant sections, which are not *modifiable*. Extending a resolution beyond its original scope does sound broken an dangerous to me. Furthermore, request to have the source is a subjective thing. How would you provide the source of a (free) WAV file then ? Since the licence comming with the pdf was, up to what I read and understand, compatible with DFSG, in particular right to reproduce, distribute and *modify*, I completely fails to see the motivations for such a decision. Romain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
