On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 11:35:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > So does this mean I can include my shareware fonts and my > > for-educational-use-only documentation in my next package upload? The > > software is free, so I guess it's ok to let these other things into main > > along with it -- right?
> It seems obvious to you that documentation is software. It is not > to me. Simply. No, the conclusion that documentation cannot be meaningfully distinguished from software in licensing is one I've reached after much thought and much reading of debian-legal. However, you are insisting that documentation should be held to a different standard of freedom, so I am asking: what is that standard? If modifiability is not a requirement for text documents, is redistributability still a requirement? Can the license demand payment if you read it? *Why* is text different from source code, where freedom is concerned? We already have a reason to believe it is not different, for Debian's purposes: the Social Contract, which says Debian will remain 100% Free Software. If you disagree, the burden of evidence is with you to demonstrate why there is a difference between software and documentation where Debian is concerned, and why such a difference does not mean that we should simply *not* be distributing documentation in main at all. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgprbzuJtNbXy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
