En réponse à Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote: > > > > 1) Are works under the GFDL with invariant sections free? > > > > It depends on 2) If documentation is software then no. > > It also depends on your definition of 'free', of course. What's > yours?
What's the definition of free documentation? > > > 2) Can Debian usefully distinguish documentation from software? > > > > This is the point I would like to be convienced about. > > When it's in a distribution primarily formed of software, I don't think > it > can be. There is some stuff - specifications, standards, effectively > electronic copies of what would otherwise be 'standalone' > documentation, > which doesn't have to be "really free" (for want of a better term) in > order > for it to be truly useful to those who would use Debian. I'm thinking > things more of a bookish nature -- which don't *need* to be modifiable > in > order to get close to maximum utility. Alright. > Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order > that we > can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as refcarding it, > > embedding it as online help, or updating it because of advances in the > program it documents). This is a transformation much more intrusive > than merely reformatting it or similar actions which you would GFDL permits this I think. But you have to keep the invariant section. > > > 5) is everything from the FSF free by definition, even if the > license > > > would be non-free for someone else? > > > 6) should Debian grant special status to the FSF and allow non-free > FSF > > > work to be part of Debian? > > > > 5) and 6) are interesting questions. This wouldn't be fair of course > :-) > > Acknowledging the FSF for all their work is a good move and should be > done > far more often than it is. According them some special right of > passage > goes over the top. It is a mtter of being fair. > > > On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote: > > >> Could we consider some invariant sections as "non-problematic"? > > > > > > This would seem to be issue #6. I'd say "no" for a lot of reasons, > but > > > I'm happy to hear yours. > > > > For instance, does the GNU manifesto as invariant section hurt? > > In the sense that our SC and DFSG state that what we hand to our users > meets > certain criteria, yes, it does, by leaving our users somewhat confused > (to > some greater or lesser degree). Drawing the line somewhere is going to > be a > mighty painful process. We only have one line at present by which we > can > say 'yes' or 'no' (take a guess what it is <g>), drawing up a bunch more > for > progressively smaller benefit doesn't look like a winning strategy to > me... I'm sorry I don't get it. > > Althought we can convince some random upstream author, do we > > have any chance about FSF manuals? > > Not likely, from the GNU responses I've seen. But if you are a true > friend, > you will continue to pester them until they throw you out and block > your > number with CNI... <g> Ah, like telling Bush we don't agree? Unlikely to be successful :-) > > > If it's part of emacs, then it's very clearly non-free software and > the > > > whole thing should be removed from Debian (unless the FSF doesn't > have to > > > follow everyone else's definition of freedom). > > > > "The whole thing"? Emacs itself? > > Yup. That's insane. > This emacs thing actually amuses me somewhat. The FSF appears to take > as > broad a line as possible in defining linking and other 'combined work' > things (so as to get as much GPL'd software as possible, of course). > But if > that work was really successful, they'd probably end up having > embedded > documentation (which emacs may or may not contain). At any rate, the > GPL > says "thou shalt not distribute a Program with both GPL and other > stuff", > and then goes and does that very same thing themselves... AFAIK, Emacs is not linked to its documentation. > > > I see the motivations as very similar. > > > > Did people suddenly decide to love writing docs? > > I think it's more that some people get very motivated where ideology > is > concerned... Writing docs is something people don't like. Let's be realistic. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant
