Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:15:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > I don't mean a Debian-specific license. I mean RMS giving the Debian > > project a copy of the manual, with political sections, but without > > marking them as invariant, under the understand that Debian would not > > remove the invariant sections. > > Hrm. That treads perilously close to being licensing by another name.
It wouldn't infringe the DFSG, because it would be an agreement about what we would do: distribute a certain package in a certain way; it wouldn't bind any of our users at all. > But RMS would, I expect, reject this. If I were him I'd realize that > this would mean that some nefarious third party could grab the GNU > Manuals *from* Debian, which would be licensed without invariant > sections, and proceed to do things the FSF doesn't want done, like print > the GNU Manuals without them. It could mean that possibility, but it's perhaps much less likely, especially if it's kept more or less quiet. :) My point here is "this would be OK for Debian, right?" I intend to attempt to pull the wool over RMS's eyes (as if I could); just that this is a possible compromise. Rather than guess at what RMS would say, let's see what he actually does say (I've asked him). Thomas
