On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 04:36:33PM +0000, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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.
> Let me quote the GR text: > "In practice, then, documentation simply isn't different enough to > warrant different standards: we still wish to provide source code in > the same manner as for programs, we still wish to be able to modify > and reuse documentation in other documentation and programs as > conveniently as possible, and we wish to be able to provide our users > with exactly the documentation they want, without extraneous > materials. " > As we don't accept program object code without source, we are not > accepting document binaries without source, either. For the motivation > behind the GR, read the various lists for that time, this was > discussed extensively back then. The requirement for source code is spelled out in DFSG#2, which explicitly uses the word "program". Applying this element of the DFSG to non-program works is a significant change that has *never* been ratified by the project. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
