Quoting Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to > > distribute something else than software. > > The social contract says Debian will remain 100% free software. Not that > Debian's software will remain 100% free. Bruce Perens has already > stepped up to clarify that this is in fact the intent of the DFSG - that > it applies to *everything* in Debian.
"We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software" This is from Clause 1 of the Social Contract. It is ambiguous. > If you think that Debian's software should remain 100% free, but > Debian's non-software, if such a thing exists, does not need to be free, > then propose a GR. debian-legal is not the place to propose GRs. No need for a GR. > > > Oh, and where the GFDL is concerned, what you apparently mean to say is, > > > "I see nothing wrong with requiring all distributors to also > > > distribute Free Software advocacy". I do: it's a restriction on > > > freedom. > > > > Free software is based on restrictions because they are needed to > > guaranty freedom. Free software obliges me to publish the source > > code with binaries. So, if I understand correctly, I'm not free > > to do what I want with my source? > > You are free to do whatever you want with *your* source, just not > someone else's source. > > In situations where you are dealing with someone else's source, the GPL > restricts you only insofar as it makes you give everyone else the same > rights you had. The GFDL does not do this, because you can add invariant > sections, and take away others' rights. This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not. > > Free software advocacy is such a restriction I do consider as > > acceptable. > > There are many things in this world more important, I think, than free > software. Many people would agree with me about most of then (ending war > and hunger, providing universal education, an end to racism, and so on). > If we consider free software advocacy an acceptable restriction because > we believe free software to be important, do we also accept advocacy for > all of these as acceptable restrictions? > > What about anti-nuclear power advocacy? What about pro-racism advocacy? (against, I'm not dealing with GFDL) This would be a case per case study. As an individual, I would study and decide what can be kept or not. > The GFDL's invariant sections are not restricted to things you agree > with. If a useful program's GFDLd manual has an invariant pro-racism > diatribe in it, will you distribute the manual? > > What if it has a pro-proprietary software diatribe? We are no longer dealing with GFDL here. Please follow the thread properly. > > > > > that a "verbatim copying only" license is Free?) > > > > > > > I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be > > > > considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall > > > > not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you > > > > wrote it, and so on. > > > > There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom. > > > > > > We shall not distribute it. > > > > This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share. > > So Debian doesn't have the freedom to *not* distribute GNU manuals? This > makes no sense. This discussion was not about GFDL manuals. -- Jérôme Marant
