This reply consists only of non-topical editorial comments. Anthony Towns wrote: > In November 2002, version 1.2 of the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU > FDL) was released by the Free Software Foundation after a long period > of consultation. Unfortunately, some concerns raised by members of the > Debian Project were not addressed, and as such the GNU FDL can apply > to works that do not pass the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), > and may thus only be included in the non-free component of the Debian > archive, not the Debian distribution itself.
Maybe just because I had a headache at the time, but the first time I
read that sentence I thought you were saying the FDL license itself
could only go in non-free. You could eliminate any ambiguity by breaking
the last sentence into two.
> The GNU FDL includes a number of conditions, which apply to all modified
> versions, that disallow modifications. In particular, these are:
Maybe say "modified versions of a work". Also, it's at first confusing
to see the "modifid versions" .. "disallow modifications", maybe
s/disallow modifications/disallow certian modifications/
> This is a very fundamental question. Debian's decision is based
> on some fundamental premises: we are, at our heart, an operating
> system distribution, so we're interested in making a good operating
> system that you can do a lot with far more than distributing every
"lot with far more" is hard to parse, suggest punctuation or something.
> What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL?
>
> Many software licenses unfortunately disallow the creation ofderivative
^^ space
> works. The FSF give everyone permission to distribute verbatim
gives
> copies of the GPL, eg, but do not give you permission to take the
does (unless FSF has a different number
than I think it has)
> It's easy to misapply the GNU FDL.
>
> The GNU FDL says that only "Secondary Sections" (a term it defines)
> may be marked Invariant, but does not say what should happen if a
> section that is not Secondary is listed as an Invariant Section.
> The FSF itself has made this mistake several times[1], so we know
> it's an easy mistake to make.
Your footnote [1] seems to be dangling.
> Given the GNU Projects influence on Debian, shouldn't the GNU Manifesto
's
> Why does this document use various Capitalisation Styles?
>
> Because you haven't edited it yet.
Ok, fine so I think you should re-case the words in the questions of
the FAQ, as follows:
What does it mean that this document is a draft?
It's the Debian Free _Software_ Guidelines, stupid -- why apply them to
documentation?
What about unmodifiable software licenses like the GNU GPL?
Beyond allowing Invariant Sections, why does the GNU FDL suck?
Why are unmodifiable sections a problem?
Given the GNU project's influence on Debian, shouldn't the GNU Manifesto
be included in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution anyway?
Why does this document use various capitalisation styles?
There are also a few "invariant sections" here and there that should be
changed to "Invariant Sections".
--
see shy jo
pgpViRv9sizDM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
