> > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > > requirements of the DFSG.
> > > > All the software in main. On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we > > > require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is > > > simply false. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > That because we're violating the social contract. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:34:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > *shrug* You can claim that if you really like. Personally, I don't > think interpreting "software" to mean "programs, but not documentation" > is particularly outrageous; and considering we've been distributing > non-DFSG-free documentation in main since the social contract has > been written, I'm afraid I don't think it's reasonable to claim that > "documentation is software too" is anything but a reinterpretation. The DFSG itself uses the term "programs" in some places and not in others. I can see some sense in saying that points where it specifically uses the term "program" don't apply to documentation if that documentation isn't supplied in the form of a program. But where the DFSG uses the term "works" I don't see any sense in claiming that it's talking only about programs and not about documentation. Which is the case for guideline #3. > > I don't think there's any question that "main" is the "Debian GNU/Linux > > Distribution" which we promise to keep "entirely free software". > > Then I presume you'll also be advocating throwing out all GPL programs, > since the text of the GPL is either software, in which case it must > be freely licensed which it isn't, or it's not software in which case > it can't go in main, either; and without the license text, we can't > distribute any of the programs licensed under the GPL. I don't see the sense in that -- the social contract explicitly states that the DFSG defines what it means by free software, and the DFSG already addresses this issue differently from what you presume I'll be advocating. > > It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- > > requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't > > seem to have any justification on Debian's part. > I have no idea what you're talking about here. There's no requirement > in the DFSG that that be possible, and that's not the major problem with > the non-DFSG-free documentation in main. That was intended to be a reference to a GFDL secondary section as a non-modifiable work. I've not done any kind of exhaustive look at this issue, but if you want to talk about other issues that's fine by me. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
