Mahesh T. Pai wrote: <snip> > But Debian, I guess, is not interested in passing along the *message*,
No, that's not right. The majority of Debian people think that understanding the message and following its principles is *more* important than passing it along. Passing it along is great, but only if we adopt it ourselves first. <snip> > And if the GFDL is not modified adequately, it will be appropriate to > have a separate section for semi-free documentation. Yeah, it's called "non-free". Feel free to come up with a better name which everyone can agree on (unfortunately, "contrib" is used already). I'd be absolutely in favor of changing the name to "non-dfsg-free". (Since it is all freely redistributable, after all, this is a clarification.) Anyone else agree? > This might > require some efforts to vet the contents and the invariant sections, > but do we not spend efforts on checking the dependencies of GPL'd > code? (for deciding whether they should go into main or contrib?) > > At least, the documents with verbatim licenses (like RFCs or the ones > which come with emacs) can be put here. Yes, they can! ;-) It's called 'non-free', but we could change its name! > > I am quite happy if someone tries to take my words and use them for > > another end. (Hell, they have in the past!) > > Most people would be unhappy when their *political* words are twisted. Even when it's made clear that that isn't *their* opinion? Really? > The problem arises when political speech gets intertwined with > technical documentation. > > > I feel I have nothing to fear from open debate and people deciding > > for themselves. > > But you overlook the possibility of people being misled by twisted > words. Consequences of a misrepresented opinion are worse than that Right, but misrepresenting opinions is not OK, and it's perfectly OK to make a license which says "Do not represent any modified version as being my opinion!" > of malicious code inserted (mis)using liberty granted by the GPL. > > Which is why documentation should be treated differently from > programs. And precisely why GFDL assigns `invariant' status to > *Secondary* Sections alone. > -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
