Raul Miller wrote: > > Software is all of what we distribute. On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 02:18:16AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > Why not to insert something like this into the SC? I think this will > make things much clear.
Because I think it belongs in the DFSG, and because the recent constitutional amendment says that the DFSG is a separate document than the SC. > > Otherwise, there would be no point to our free software guidelines. > > Why not? If "software" is not all of what we distribute, then our free software guidelines are inadequate for our purposes -- we use those guidelines as the basis for decisions what we will distribute and what we won't. > I may be wrong, but before GFDL most of free program > documentation was distributed with the same license as the program. > That's why there was no need to differentiate this in DFSG. That never needed to be the case, and I don't know that it was the case. We've had many packages where one part of the package is distributed under one license, and another part of the package is distributed under some other license. > Anyway, I do not think that "dropping non-free" and "GFDL (non)freeness" > are related topics, except both of topics depend on SC and DFSG. Except that, according to the DFSG and the SC, GFDL nonfreeness means that GFDL belongs in non-free. So dropping all of non-free should mean dropping GFDL. Also, the other stuff in non-free is not necessarily more non-free than GFDL. [How do you measure "non-freeness"? By the number of debian's free software guidelines which are satisfied?] -- Raul
