On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 12:30:03AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Can someone please run by me again why they think we need a new > category `verbatim' or whatever alongside main, contrib, non-free ?
It is pretty well agreed (I think) that Official CD's should carry even immutable standards that wouldn't pass the DFSG. Whether we call these packages "Debian", and exactly where in the directory structure they should go was not resolved. The failure to reach concensus was probably due to consideration of the other immutable documents (software licenses in particular). > I agree strongly with whoever it was that said that this was just > trying to duck the issue. Either we are happy with a particular kind > of documentation being more restricted than DFSG-free or we are not. > > If we are happy with this then it should go in main. If we are not > then it should go in non-free. Recalling Manoj's immutable document classes (I think I missed 2 of them), these are my suggestions using the existing distributions: Software documentation: non-free Licence texts: main Standards: contrib Opinions: ? Artwork: non-free Many people have suggested a fourth distribution verbatim/ to include several of these. There was particular concern over weakening the licensing requirements of contrib/, hence the need for a new verbatim/ distribution that would contain standards, opinions, and free-standing software licenses like the GPL. There was also concern over distancing the GPL from the packages covered by it. verbatim/ would not contain software and would be considered part of Debian. Whether the legal text of a software license can be immutable was debated. The Berne convention has a clause punting on the issue, so presumably the signatory nations couldn't agree either, and copyright of legal texts is subject to local legislation. -Drake
