On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements > of the DFSG.
All the software in main. > At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright > licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. This is a matter of some (heh) debate. The reconciliation of this viewpoint with "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software" is quite strained; and many actually do see it as a requirement that documentation itself satisfy the guidelines of the DFSG. [Additionally, no one who claims that documentation doesn't need to satisfy the DFSG has come forward with a rubric to distinguish documentation from software.] As far as licenses go, their status as legal documents may affect their copyrightability, but moreover, their modifiability. As such, I don't think anyone is calling to strictly apply the DFSG to them. > Andrew's proposal does nothing to affect this at all. I gather you're discussing the non-free proposal, as the SC modification does clear up the former half of the above debate. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
