anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> > wrote: > > Why is it ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous to put a policy > > document under GPL than any other document? > > It is in the same ridiculous for other document. It is ridiculous in > the way people want to hide, skip or complicate things. GPL clearly > doesn't suit "works" that are not binary, nor source code, that are > organized for storage in classic real world libraries.
It's not clear that the GPL doesn't suit such works. The Debian policy is software with source code: the DocBook source document. I don't know what “organised for storage in classic real world libraries” has to do with the software form of a work, which is all we need to consider for the license of a work in Debian. > 1. What am I free to do with with GPL'ed policy text? View it, examine its source code, modify it, and/or redistribute it under the same license terms. > 2. Are you sure about that? Yes. The GPL grants those freedoms. > > Why do you want specific justification for choosing the GPL? > > Just because I believe it is chosen blindly. I believe it is a deliberate choice on the part of the copyright holders in the work. > Why do you need policy license at all? Because it is a work covered by copyright. By default, without a license, recipients of a work covered by copyright have no freedom to demand source code, modify, and/or redistribute. These freedoms are necessary for works in Debian, therefore a free-software license is needed for the work. > > What specific problems do you see from choosing the GPL for a work, > > and why should those problems concern us in this case? > > One specific problem is that nobody understands what do you mean when > releasing something that is not software under GPL. The Debian policy is digital information, therefore it is software (as opposed to hardware). Perhaps you mean “something that is not a program”. > It can simply be deemed invalid in court and usual copyright rules > apply. In this case it can be sought like the freedom authors choose > to express their opinions about what did they meant later. You do not > license for that. I don't know what would lead you to think the GPL would be deemed invalid for the Debian policy more than any other software work. > I still have no idea why Policy authors have chosen GPL Perhaps, then, you should not assert they have chosen the GPL blindly. Bastian Venthur <vent...@debian.org> writes: > Quoting the second paragraph from the copyright notice: > > "This manual is free software; you can redistribute it..." > > so this *manual* is free *software*. Really?! Yes. Software is digital information. Manuals, stored as digital information, are software. The GPL has terms that are specific to executable software, but works fine as a license for software that happens not to be executable. Now, in the absence of a specific problem with applying the GPL to the software work that is the Debian policy, I don't think there's any more need to call for changing it. -- \ “People are very open-minded about new things, as long as | `\ they're exactly like the old ones.” —Charles F. Kettering | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
