On Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 10:26:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Something to consider: you have gone a ong way towards > convincing me that the rename-and-distinguish-if-modified clause is a > good thing if one is creating a standard; but what if the author has > gone the route of no modifications at all? Is this so egregious that > we throw it out of Debian? Why should exeptions be made for licenses > (which are in just as great a need to be improved and modified look > at NPL, AbiPL, and other GPL knockoffs [which in some way do dilute > the GPL, is only psychologically]) but not for standards? What about > non-technical documents, like Graphic novels or any of the other > categories? Perhaps the issue isn't as much what shouldn't be allowed in Debian but more the specific case of something Debian is working on? That social contract and all. > Actually, I am going to make a stand about our Hypocrisy; > anything that you have said also applies to Licenses. You want to > throw things like the FHS and others out of main, you have to throw > out the DFSG, the social contract, and GPL etc out as well I don't think they should be, any of them. I don't think the DFSG counts anyway since it's not a license. Licenses are not change-able for a reason. That's IP issues, not free software issues IMO. A standards document should be allowed to be unmodifyable, same with a license. Am I making any sense?
Attachment:
pgpjZ_EJejx2q.pgp
Description: PGP signature