Re: What RMS says about standards (was: [rms@gnu.org: Re: Questions regarding free documentation.]
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
Ian> Can someone please run by me again why they think we need a new
Ian> category `verbatim' or whatever alongside main, contrib, non-free ?
There were two reasons given.
a) Even if we agree to keeping the immutable documents as part of
Debian, there is merit in having a main distribution where
everything is modifiable; verbatim contains things that are
not. People can then play with everything in main without needing
to worry about licenses
b) Even if we do not like verbatim documents well enough to make them
part of main, they are not as damaging to the software community
as prpreitary software is; verbatim recognizes the distinction
(based partly on the fact that the entities we are talking about
are not software).
Ian> I agree strongly with whoever it was that said that this was just
Ian> trying to duck the issue. Either we are happy with a particular kind
Ian> of documentation being more restricted than DFSG-free or we are not.
And I think there are more options that two to some
questions. The world is not just black and white, and I see no reason
that we can't say "we prefer free licenses and standards, but we do
allow license and standards that do not allow derivatives in the
distribution. The verbatim distribution emphasises this distinction".
Ian> If we are happy with this then it should go in main. If we are not
Ian> then it should go in non-free.
And I think we need step out of binary mode of thought.
manoj
--
Any time things appear to be going better, you have overlooked
something.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: