On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free
> documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it
> would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing
> that the licenses of this documentation had been examined, their DFSG
> incompatibilities recognized, and the packages kept in main in spite of
> this.  

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/debian-devel-199811/msg02368.html

] Certain kinds of documentation or other non-software works may have
] further restrictions.
...
] (b) A document which states an opinion, as an opinion, need not be
] modifiable.

Ian's proposal was rejected as being too formal, but was widely seen and
discussed. At the time though, this particular point was accepted without
argument, afaics and afaicr.

> Instead, what we have is the original author of the DFSG stating
> he intended documentation to be covered by the DFSG, 

I find that a bit hard to believe, even with Bruce's assertion. All the
GNU docs have always been non-DFSG-free [0], eg, and imagining that everyone
in Debian just happened not to notice seems quite a stretch to me.

> and various other people saying it was never really discussed.

Not everything that's obvious gets discussed, even on Debian lists.

Cheers,
aj

[0] gcc's manual as of v2.8.1, March 1998, says:

    Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of
    this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided
    also that the sections entitled ``GNU General Public License,''
    ``Funding for Free Software,'' and ``Protect Your Freedom---Fight
    `Look And Feel'@w{}'' are included exactly as in the original, and
    provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under
    the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

             Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to