Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Agreed. I will continue to assert that there is an extra level of > scrutiny required for GNU FDL-licensed material that is inapplicable to > GNU GPL-licensed material. If all copyright within a GPL'ed work is > consistent and accurate, then it's fine; it is impossible for an > author/copyright holder to misapply the GNU GPL to his own work. The > same is not true of the GNU FDL.
Agreed. > > > You are asking us to allow a lot more non-modifiable, and thus non-Free, > > > material into Debian than we currently do. I find this stance > > > unacceptable. > > > > Really? I'm stunned that you could say this. > > I don't see why. It is pretty obvious to me that the existing DFSG > provides no exceptions to clause 3. The work must be modifiable and > modified versions must be redistributable under the same license as > the original. Period. It doesn't say "except for the license text > itself". That is a de facto exception that Debian has made in the > past. As far as I know, we have made no others, except by accident. Nope, the de facto exceptions have included such things as the Emacs manual *from day one*. Moreover, the DFSG applies to *software* by its own explicit terms, and we simply have never had (nor needed) to worry over much about other kinds of material. Things which do not directly impact the freedom of *software* are separate. That aside, I agree completely that we should try to avoid non-modifiable text where we can, but that comprimises about this do not implicate our core principles they way they would when it comes to software. > > 4) We would prefer it if other text not falling in categories (1), > > (2), and (3) also permitted modification, but we recognize that > > many of them historically have not (the Manifesto chapter of the > > Emacs manual, for example). We think that it's OK for Debian to > > include such things, but we are nervous and sketchy about it. We > > think at the least the following should be true: > > a) No bending on principles (1) and (2). > > b) Any such unmodifiable text must be a small portion of the > > package. > > I agree with this, however I think you need to consider the possibility > of things other than text being held unmodifiable. Shall we permit that > or not? What sorts of things do you have in mind? If we must have a "bright line" principle, then I would prefer one expressed as a percentage of total size of the package, and which does not depend on the sort of package or text involved.
