On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:39:31AM +1000, Brian May wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Software." Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be > > Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an > > It must be free software, even if it's documentation?
It doesn't matter what it *is*. People can and will argue for eternity
about how many angels should dance on the software and documentation
pins.
What matters is how what's packaged for Debian is *licensed*.
> So any documentation, if included in Debian, would suddenly transform
> into computer software? I don't think so...
Another straw man lies slain!
> Of course, it is possible to blur the issue, for instance, is a C
> comment documentation or C code? Is a C printf statement documentation
> or C code?
Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions?
Why isn't it enough to worry about the license?
> What if you wrapped the contents of the GPL in a C printf
> statement? Would it still meet the DFSG?
Under my proposals, it would if it were a license applicable to the
softare in question, but not otherwise (because the Free Software
Foundation does not permit alteration of their copyrighted text).
> Also, it is worth noting that even the GPL doesn't allow unrestricted
> editing of source files:
>
> a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Also, it is worth noting that even the BSD license doesn't allow
unrestricted editing of source files:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
disclaimer.
Your point?
--
G. Branden Robinson | Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny
Debian GNU/Linux | that reading it will cause an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | aneurysm. This is not that .sig.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpiwS9aHrArr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
