On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 00:25 -0400, Bake Timmons wrote: > >> Thus, summary scripts would be OK, since COPYING would appear as any > >> other non-free item--except having a comment "waiver" (footnote). > >> This would be less ambitious than what Sam suggests, since scripts > >> would still be "ignorant" about non-free exceptions. However, there > >> is nothing preventing footnotes from being analyzed to provide such > >> "knowledge" in the future. Indeed, there might be additional bits of > >> knowledge in footnotes that contribute to automated uses. > > > > So to make sure i understand correctly: It would be marked /non-free/ > > with a note about why we include it, rather then /free/ with a note > > about why we consider it free (its a licence). > > There are certainly different motivations to justify either way. > Thinking about it again, "free" could indeed be made acceptable with > sufficient explanation, which would matter even more than in the > non-free case given the controversy that has flared up before (e.g., > in Debian).
I think if we aim for a 100% free distro, and say "we are 99% free because of licence files" it will be more confusing then if we say "we are 100% free, and heres why we consider licence files to be a non-issue" > > Perhaps some people might feel "free" is deceptive, but that is why a > *good* footnote matters--even more in the "free" case. It matters not > to just avoid deception but to avoid the *perception* of deception. I agree. > Again, it should link to a separate page, in part to demonstrate how > much we care about careful explanation and encouraging readers to > think for themselves. The page can be quite brief, but should at > least be very, very clear with canonical references, etc. In addition > to the footnote and web page, we should also look for other areas to > clarify, such as the pages introducing (K/P)FV. > > A plain, no-nonsense way of presenting it is: > > For the main purpose of Freedom Verification--which is to identify, > document, and remove non-free sofware that has no place in a free > software distribution--COPYING is indeed completely "free". I would say "Licence texts are completely free", rather then COPYING files - licences appear in other files as well, and the COPYING file may not be free (i cant imagine why, but there could be non-changable text of some sort in the file, thats not related to the licence) > > However, we need to be more thorough and clear. We should generalize > a bit more than we have done, since it is not just COPYING that is > "non-free" in a strict sense. By *that* measure thousands of files in > the kernel source are non-free since they contain invariant parts, > namely, text or references to licenses of many kinds. Thus, a better > explanation would be careful not to inadvertently put COPYING in the > doghouse, as if it were any different in this sense than other license > text. I agree (i guess thats obvious from my paragraph above :)) > > BTW, regarding non-free documentation, while Ubuntu may already filter > it out, should we not be more explicit in rejecting it? (Maybe I am > not acquainted enough with the gNS web sites.) I belive the aim of gNS is 100% *FSF* free (as oposed to DFSG free). As such the doco moved by upstream(s) into non-free categories may actually be free for our purposes. kk -- Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
