I have not asked you to send copies of list messages to me; please don't. <URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>
"Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My point here is that it's a matter of interpretation and degree; Debian has interpreted it, many times in the past. Others may interpret it as they please, but it's up to Debian what they put in their operating system. > I can't think of any situation where the words "a GNU manual" could > actually hinder anyone's use, modification or distribution of, well, > a GNU manual. This shows that you've not been *reading* the references given to you. Please do so. (Hint: If such a GNU manual were free, one would need to modify the statement "A GNU Manual" on derived works for which that statement is not true.) Please read the referenced documents again before re-raising points already covered in them. > Source tarballs under any license have an unmodifiable section in > their license terms, and we tolerate that Indeed, as an unavoidable function of copyright law we must distribute the copyright license without granting freedom to modify the text of the license as it applies to the work. Note that we don't distribute license texts *except* as required by copyright law; i.e. only as they are required to give the license terms for a work in Debian. Any other non-free work in Debian is a bug, to be fixed either by changing the license terms or removing the work. > but the GFDL is seemingly different because it forces GNU philosophy > down our throats, right? We reject any non-free work for inclusion in Debian, regardless of who made it or what it says. *None* of this is new to this discussion. Now, again, please re-read what has already been written on this topic so it doesn't need to be repeated in full. -- \ "It's not what you pay a man, but what he costs you that | `\ counts." -- Will Rogers | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
