On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > > > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". > > > > > > Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything > > > in Debian. > > > > Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc. So, > > if we're to be true to our creed, here's what we have to do: > > Ahh, but icons which fail the DFSG have been declared non-free in the > past. So we have (still more) precedent for applying the DFSG to > non-software.
The point being made, which everyone is so carfully ignoring is the word "Software" in the title. These are software guidelines, nothing more. They don't even define the whole of Debian, just the software. The differences are obvious. While my book is written in LaTeX, and the image file (ps or pdf) is constructed from these source files via the use of Make, it is very different from what we call software. The difference is in the target. The output of the LaTeX "compiler" is intended to be viewed by a human being, who, hopefully, has the capability of not following written instructions or ignoring contrary philosophies. The output of the C compiler is intended for a specific CPU, and all instructions are "forced" upon that CPU with no choice over which it will execute and which it will ignore (thank goodness for that ;-) My freedom is enhanced by being able to make those instructions for the CPU be just what I want them to be. (This machine IS after all my slave) My modification needs extend over the complete work as defined by the source, and we can all see just why this should be. The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of the book's content, but has every reason to be "protected" from modification. These particular words have a value that must be protected. The front and back cover text may be used to give credit to someone who provided substantial financial support during the time of the works production. Without requiring such credit, other publishers could benefit from the work without giving the proper credit. None of these issues force behavior on the reader, like code does for the CPU. So no "freedoms" are being infringed upon by forcing the text to remain unchanged. The freedom of expression of the author is what is being protected by this clause. The freedom to express opinion without having those statements twisted into something completely different is one of the reasons for the creation of the copyright in the first place. If you insist on judging documentation against the same standard as software, the results are always going to be wrong. Just to contradict my previous statement: The GPL allows (demands) two invarient sections of the original source; the copyright statement, and the license statement. Requiring these sections to be invarient does not make the license non-free. These sections are, in fact, necessarily invarient if the author's and the user's rights are to be protected. Allowing non-technical content to be made invarient does nothing to restrict the freedom to modify the parts of the document that are a technical description. Using my book as an example, there have been many patches submitted either for spelling or content. I have included all those that were correct ;-) I have never seen the book published with changes that were not made by me, so it isn't clear to me just what the pressing modification requirement is in the first place... Luck, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_- _- _- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _- _- _- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]