Soren Stoutner <so...@debian.org> writes: > On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:44:18 PM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Interesting. How do you combine that view with the interpretation that >> went into rejecting GFDL as a free license? I'm having trouble >> following your line of thinking after reading the following, especially >> regarding 2.1 Invariant Sections: >> >> https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 >> >> To be specific, how is this situation any different from a GFDL document >> with an Invariant Section including the text of the DCO or, say, the GPL >> license, or the GNU Manifesto? >> >> /Simon > > The GFDL with Invariant Section is not the right comparison. The correct > comparison is to the GPL (which has the exact same wording).
I disagree. I don't see any problem with the license on the GPL text itself, when GPL is used as a license on a piece of work in Debian and documented in debian/copyright. The rest of your argument assume that I do. The DCO is not used in that way, and nobody has suggested they ought to be treated the same way so far. So the situations aren't comparable. The GFDL with an Invariant Section can be used to release works, and Debian rejects this today presumably because there is no license to modify the Invariant Section. Just like there is no license granted to make modifications to the Linux Foundation's DCO. So I believe it is a parallel worthwhile to explore. /Simon > The difference is that nothing that is delivered to the user in the form of > code or documentation that they cannot modify according to the GPL and the > DCO. With invariant sections of the GFDL, documentation is delivered to the > end user that they cannot modify. The distinct is important. The very > foundation of most DFSG-free licenses is that copyright and license > information must be preserved in all copies (in other words, copyright and > licensing information are invariant, often specifically required to be > verbatim). Everything else can be changed by the users. In very few cases > in > Debian are you free to remove copyright or licensing information from the top > of a file and redistribute it. > > If you feel strongly that the DCO is not DFSG-compliant, I would encourage > you > to make your best argument to the greater Debian community (it would need to > be an argument that has not to this point been made). I would recommend that > instead of focusing on the DCO, you should focus on why you feel the GPL > (and, > honestly, the Apache License 2.0, all the BSD variants, Expat, and most other > licenses distributed in Debian that require that the unchanged text of the > license be included in all copies and derivative works) is not compatible > with > the DFSG as more people are familiar with the GPL than the DCO. Any > conclusion reached about the GPL will automatically apply to the DCO. >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
