On Tue, Aug 18, 1998 at 03:22:11AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote: > > I don't see the point of a verbatim dist.. Perhaps a verbatim section in > > main...? > > As I understand it, the purpose of a verbatim distribution is so that > we can ship documents (be it standards, books, graphic novels, > political opinion) that we have the right to distribute verbatim, but > not to modify. Such documents don't meet the requirements of the DFSG, > but may be of utility to ship anyway. I'm one of those who would point out the DF Software G aspect of main. Adding a verbatim dist would be essentially saying that we're fine with documents that aren't free. You could say by allowing them in main we're doing the same thing, but if their in main we can at least say that they are only there because they have to be and that it's unreasonable to do otherwise at this time. If we leave it as is we can replace these standards with free and compatible versions if someone is willing to write them. Leave it alone till there's something we can do about the individual cases and deal with them right at that time. If we create a verbatim dist it's essentially saying that we're willing to allow these things more or less indefinately. > Many people feel that documents of a non-technical nature (like > personal comments, political papers and free-software manifestos, etc) > should not need the ability to be modified to be useful, and that we > should be able to distribute them, even though they may be, > technically, non-free (under the definition of the DFSG). The issue is > less certain about documents of a technical nature like standards: some > feel that a modifiable standard is not a standard, while others feel > that modifiability is useful to have in a standard. Again, the DFSG does not apply to documentation. The question of whether or not to create a new document covering documentation is an issue, but. I don't think we can afford to do that now. Certain things which count as documentation for the purposes of this discussion should not be modifiable on principle.. Cathedral/Bazaar should not be modified for example. Standards documents should not be modified. However, they should allow derived works. Which is to say that you can't change the standard but you can use it to try and make something better which people may or may not agree is better. Licenses have to be exempt from this discussion for legal reasons. They don't count anyway. However it would be good if the GPL v3 allowed you to use it as a template as long as you don't call your changes the GPL because the result isn't. This is implicit since the thing is a legal document and isn't really subject to plagiarism really, but if it actually spelled out that you could do that, it'd be good. > The "verbatim" distribution is a compromise, it allows us to ship > documents that we have permission to distribute verbatim, but still be > able to call "main" 100% free. > > Software and software documentation would be prohibited from > "verbatim", since there is a very compelling case that they should be > free. > > A verbatim section versus a verbatim distribution isn't desirable, > since the distributions differ by licensing requirements, while > sections differ on function/utility. Since the critical issue is > licensing, verbatim needs to be a distribution. You can't move licenses to verbatim anyway, don't try. If you understand the legal reasons behind this (though I am not a lawyer I know a couple and this issue has come up in discussions before) you would see that it's not necessary, a good idea, or even legally safe. And because of the nature of a license, it's modifiable and applicable to derived works whether the license gives permission or not. The BSD license doesn't give permission to remove the 3rd or 4th clause, though many people remove the 4th and sometimes the 3rd as well. This isn't breaking copyright law or anything. Documentation is another issue. I really think it's bad to start second guessing whether certain documents should be modifiable or not at this or any time in the near future. Debian and perhaps SPI could advocate for free documentation, but by trying to force the issue now with a verbatim secton or dist, we'll be saying that we are such rabid fanatics that we won't accept a standards document because we can't manipulate that standard at our whim (which makes us sound like our favorite company IMO) and then hypocritic because we have created a dist just for the non-free docs we won't accept. It'd be a PR nightmare.
Attachment:
pgpQtIdNSDyJC.pgp
Description: PGP signature