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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to