On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:34:26AM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:04:41AM +1030, Ron wrote:
> > If use of the the invariant section is the bug here, then it appears to
> > me that in this file at least, it is quite redundant and changes nothing.
>
> Yes, it's the invariant sections that are the problem. Honestly, don't ask me
> why (like you, I'm not into the license debate thing), but we had a GR saying
> that the GFDL with invariant sections (or front- and back-cover texts) is
> non-free. Thus, all documentation licensed under the GFDL with invariant
> sections must go from main -- I don't see the big point of discussing it any
> further than that.
I don't profess to be an authority on the details of this, which is why
I'm seeking clarification -- but it does seem fairly obvious to me that
any invariant section which inhibits our freedom to modify the source is
clearly not DFSG free...
What is not obvious to me, is that the "invariant section" here (in at
least the case I quoted) does anything of that sort at all. In this
case it just seems to make explicit something which has always been
the case, and which wouldn't change without that invariant section:
namely that you can't modify the GPL text included with, and referred
to by, that source.
So if the invariant section is a no-op, I don't really see how it can
affect the status of this source being Free or not. I agree with the
basic premise of the GR, but this seems to be a corner case where its
intention would not seem to actually apply.
If that really is true, then I likewise don't see the benefit of
diverting time (long term) that I could otherwise spend on actually
pursuing the goals of the project, just because a popular vote
oversimplified the real issue.
I don't want to sound like a stick in the mud, but if we are going to
invest in doing this, I really would like to see some iron clad reasons
why it is either Good or Necessary.
Ultimately, it is going to boil down to a line call from the RM's as to
whether they think this source is suitable to include in the release
as is, or whether we need to modify it to be so, but I would like all
of us to come to that conclusion on the basis of the best information
that we can gather about it.
> > If we are not going to declare the base-files package (with the
> > unmodifiable GPL text), or any other package that includes that invariant
> > text (probably a large portion of the distro), to be non-free, then what is
> > the issue with explicitly (re)stating that (unchanged) fact in this text?
>
> License texts are a special case, really. Please don't try to pull the debate
> in that direction; it's not particularily productive. :-)
The former was precisely my intended point there. I didn't raise it to
try to open a new can of worms and distract from resolving this, rather
to recognise that if we accept licences are a special case [1], then I
don't really see how that changes if explicit mention is made of them
being invariant.
It seems logically inconsistent to void that special case just because
other texts remind you of it. If the point of documentation is to
explain the Things You Need To Know, this seems like a perfectly
acceptable, even advisable thing to document clearly.
My problem is I'm still not sure exactly what is not DFSG free about
any of these files. Knowing which files the mainstream gcc package
split out narrows down the candidates to investigate, but it doesn't
really answer the issue raised by the original bug report one way or
the other...
best,
Ron
[1] - we don't gain much from 'hacking them', anyone can create new ones,
and to be effective they do _need_ to be invariant -- fwiw I'm not
a big personal fan of the "or any later version" loophole that covers
some GPL code
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
