Re: Distribution of license documents (fwd)
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 02:01:00AM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
>
> We outline our stance on free licenses on the web page, get the
> long-suffering Nils to do a press release on it, and make some noise.
> Possibly, out of courtesy, we should privately get RMS's thoughts on it
> first.
I would recommend this. There may be things we haven't considered at all
(what legal implications it has to make an existing license modificable,
what practical consequences it has [costs to pay a lawyer to double check
etc]).
Also, many GPL'ed programs allow to apply any later version of the GPL, so
any change to the GPL would affect not only FSF software, but most GPL
software out there. I think RMS will not make any change too easily.
I think every lawyer will get a headache about recursive licenses :)
> Any package which consisted of standalone licenses would go in verbatim.
> We similarly outline our stance on free standards.
Ok.
> Any non-free standards go in verbatim.
> We also make a public statement on free content, although acknowledging
> maybe that this is a different battle.
> Any non-free 'works of art' (non-free content) goes in verbatim.
If the creation of a verbatim section is supported by the majority, I give
in. Formally, I object, but not as a veto, just as a single objection.
Considering the alternatives, I think this is a good compromise.
My personal opinion is (just for the record), that all the things above can
go into non-free, too.
> Unless I have forgotten something, I suspect the only 'non-free' left in
> main will then be the licenses themselves. I think that this is a worthy
> exception. It appears to be required by the X consortium license, and the
> GPL, and it could certainly be required by another license, without
> rendering said license non-DFSG free.
Yes.
Well, there may be something you have forgotten: Email snippets from
upstream authors. For example, there is a mail by Linus in one of the
libc6/kernelheader packages. I think those are a worthy exception, too (we
don't want a linus-mail.deb package with a single file, or do we?)
Furthermore, there are things like the debian-manifesto, or the dfsg. What
happens with them depends if verbatim is part of Debian or not:
> I will emphasise that verbatim *is* (IMO) a part of debian. It is in no
> way 'less' a part of debian than main.
This may turn out as a matter of opinion. Some people agree with you, other
had considerations (I remember Richard Braakmann and Raul Miller saying
something to this effect). Maybe this should be subject to a vote among the
developers, considering that it effects the whole distribution?
> However, we recognise the value of
> free licenses, free standards and also free content, and we attempt to
> ensure that main remains free *with the single exception that* we will
> always include the license with a package, even if that license is
> non-free.
Ok. [but what about email snippets...]
> [As a side note, we should attempt to ensure that all grpahics in
> main - e.g. example pixmaps, themes for E, backgrounds for Eterm, etc. are
> free]
This is important, yes.
Thank you for your excellent summary,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: