On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:09:15 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of a >> GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG >> or the social contract? > because the GFDL is not a non-free license. > GFDL invariant sections do not make a document non-free. see DFSG > patch clause. >> Specifically, I am looking at the SC: >> >> 1. Debian will remain 100% free >> >> And the DFSG: >> >> The license must allow modifications and derived works, >> >> and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms >> >> as the license of the original software. >> >> We would need to change the must allow modifications bit, as I see >> it -- since a license attached to a work must allow modifications >> to the work, as it is currently stated. (I do not consider the >> license to be part of the work). > no, it's not necessary to change anything. > DFSG patch clause. > read it. > explains all. > restricting modifications to original + patch only is explicitly > permitted. But one is supposed to be able to distribute the patched derived work. In this case, I should be able to have the orig.tar.gz contain the invariant, the diff.gz contain stuff to remove the invariant, and the .deb not contain it. That seems not permitted. manoj -- Bringing computers into the home won't change either one, but may revitalize the corner saloon. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]