-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 22 September 2003 08:49, Andreas Barth wrote: > If the whole docu would be DFSG-free, than there would be no cause to > remove polical statements.
On Wednesday 24 September 2003 01:12, Richard Stallman wrote: > According to Don Armstrong, a non-modifiable text cannot under any > circumstances be considered DFSG-free, so it would have to be removed > from the manual. Others have (it appears) said the same thing. These two statements above do not contradict one another. A /non-modifiable/ text could not be included in Debian, a /modifiable/ one would most likely be. That is, I believe what people have been saying: On Monday 22 September 2003 20:21, Don Armstrong wrote: > If the political essays were DFSG free, the maintainers would (most > likely) be happy to distribute them without modifying them. However, > because they are not DFSG free, we cannot distribute them at all. > Therefore, the maintainer tries to serve our users by distributing the > largest subset that is Free, which forces him to exise the non-Free > bits. On Tuesday 23 September 2003 09:30, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: > If they were both removable and modifiable (so not invariant), they would > be DFSG-free and nobody would have any reason to remove them. > > Even if they were removable but not modifiable, they would still not be > DFSG-free, so the only way to get a DFSG-free document would be to have > them removed. On Tuesday 23 September 2003 01:06, Andrew Saunders wrote: > Yes, because any such essay would not be DFSG free, and DFSG free-ness > is a prerequisite for inclusion of software[1] in main. For the > political statements to remain, they would have to be both removable > *and* modifiable. On Tuesday 23 September 2003 01:06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot > > be modified. > > DFSG prohibits such unmodifiable content. If the whole doc was DFSG, > there wouldn't *be* any essays that cannot be modified. ... etc. On Wednesday 24 September 2003 01:12, Richard Stallman wrote: > Having seen a lot of rigid dogmatism here recently, I can hardly > expect Debian not to be rigidly dogmatic on this issue too. I can not share your observation of rigid dogmatism on Debian's side of the debate. However, if FSF or GNU texts were included in a completely DFSG-free manual, what you call dogmatism would probably prompt most maintainers to defend its inclusion, should that be necessary. Regards Jan Schumacher -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/c8RL4cR0MEP0sUQRAgxmAKCHHOdL8JFb2E04imYd402+sP26FACgs3Ed k8K1Mki6rv0ELNCD9XyOA8E= =L+ng -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
