Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I became aware of the concepts of free software, Debian, the FSF and > the real meaning of 'free as in freedom' on doing some follow up > reading after coming across other files in this very same directory > (while using another distro). According to the consensus on this list, > these files do not deserve to be in Debian, the OS. > > But, do please consider this situation :- If those files were > modifiable / removable, and if somebody did, in fact, modify them, and > I (or any other user) had come across that distro, I would never have > turned to Debian. Please consider this fact while those packages / > docs are being moved out to non-free.
You are talking about an unlikely situation (that such a distro would gain huge market share) versus real concerns. > > Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets. > > Sure. Not only the snippets, but also the invariant sections in a > GFDL'ed doc. But rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free. > > So the rights to modify will have to be granted to everybody. And one > bad apple in that 'everybody', who would most likely have much money & > marketing power *might* remove the philosophy and political parts, and > create their own distros bereft of the 'free as in freedom' > 'pontifications'. ;) This problem cannot be wished away by dual > licensing these docs under GPL. Still couldn't remove the license. > On the other hand, the Debian Community has very valid points to > object to the GFDL, It will be difficult for Debian to make > concessions specific to copyrights held by the FSF. Any body can use > the invariant sections to include unpalatable messages. > > RMS has a point when he argues that it is not sufficient to have free > software. We need to constantly remind everybody about those > freedoms. To that end, it is essential to educate users and every body > else about the freedoms, and utilise every opportunity to spread the > word. Paving the way for removal of the political/ philosophical > messages about freedom in software of the kind published by the FSF > would be counter - productive to the free software community (and > therefore, Debian itself) in the long run. Personally, I find it ironic that the FSF feel they have to use non-free means to spread the word about free software, and feel strongly enough about it to contaminate free manuals into non-free ones to do it. > I think the only way out would be to create a separate section for > GFDl'ed docs with invariant sections named something like GFDL-doc or > doc-semifree (or whatever - nonfree is harsh and unwarranted term). There's all sorts of border cases in non-free, including `no commercial use'.
