Re: Debian and FSF docs (was: Man pages for gcc)
On Vi, 10 dec 21, 17:17:24, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 12:41:01PM +0100, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > At the very least Debian could split non-free into sections or add more > > areas (non-free firmware being another obvious candidate for splitting > > out). > > > > Do wait a little while and there may well ba e GR to that effect. I guessed something like this might happen based on Steve's mail to -vote ;) As much as I hate to admit it, the free installer is at the moment a major hurdle to new Debian users, but I'm also not convinced a general exception for all (distributable) firmware is necessarily the right answer either. Let's see what the Project decides. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian and FSF docs (was: Man pages for gcc)
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 12:41:01PM +0100, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Du, 31 oct 21, 17:37:10, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > This is because GNU releases their documentation under a different license > > > than their source code. And Debian considers the GNU documentation > > > license to be non-free (rightly so, because it prohibits distributing > > > modified versions). > > > > FWIW, it's not nearly as clear cut as you make it sound, because it does > > not prevent distribution of all modified versions. > > > > It does require one particular section to be kept unmodified (IIRC it's > > the section that promotes the FSF philosophy), but the bulk is Free in > > the usual sense of allowing redistribution of modified versions. > > As far as I understand[1] further modifications can add other invariant > sections as well and humans have demonstrated a remarkable capacity of > abusing such loopholes. > > > I find this state of affair rather sad and am disappointed by both > > Debian and the FSF for not finding a compromise. It ends up promoting > > the use of the non-free repository, which I think neither project wants. > It's _not_ a Debian problem in one sense: it's the FSF's licence. Or we could say "it's in non-free - not part of Debian - so we really don't care and if it breaks, well so what" > At the very least Debian could split non-free into sections or add more > areas (non-free firmware being another obvious candidate for splitting > out). > Do wait a little while and there may well ba e GR to that effect. All the very best, as ever, Andy CAter > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/GFDLPositionStatement > > Kind regards, > Andrei > -- > http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Re: Debian and FSF docs (was: Man pages for gcc)
On Du, 31 oct 21, 17:37:10, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > This is because GNU releases their documentation under a different license > > than their source code. And Debian considers the GNU documentation > > license to be non-free (rightly so, because it prohibits distributing > > modified versions). > > FWIW, it's not nearly as clear cut as you make it sound, because it does > not prevent distribution of all modified versions. > > It does require one particular section to be kept unmodified (IIRC it's > the section that promotes the FSF philosophy), but the bulk is Free in > the usual sense of allowing redistribution of modified versions. As far as I understand[1] further modifications can add other invariant sections as well and humans have demonstrated a remarkable capacity of abusing such loopholes. > I find this state of affair rather sad and am disappointed by both > Debian and the FSF for not finding a compromise. It ends up promoting > the use of the non-free repository, which I think neither project wants. At the very least Debian could split non-free into sections or add more areas (non-free firmware being another obvious candidate for splitting out). [1] https://wiki.debian.org/GFDLPositionStatement Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
