This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.2/3.3/HEAD] Make all the manuals unambiguously DFSG free
jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck) wrote on 23.01.03 in <20030123150602.A15387@synopsys.com·2>:
> In any case, it appears that the FSF and the Debian folks may find
> themselves at an impasse: the FSF wants to be able to spread its message
> ("propaganda" for those who don't like it) by including it in manuals, and
> Debian seems to be trying to extend the DFSG to non-software and wants to
> bar attempts to do this.
Just a small clarification of the ebian side: there is no expansion going
on here. The DFSG were *always* meant to apply to everything in Debian; it
is only recently that people noticed that much documentation has
conflicting licences. When the DFSG were created, most everyone probably
assumed that documentation to a program was usually under the exact same
terms as the source, and that this was certainly true for FSF packages - I
know I was. Come to think of it, I'm rather certain the DFSG are quite a
bit older than the GFDL ...
Then people became astonished and upset at realizing that the software
package that inspired the creation of the GPL (which is probably the main,
at least motivational, influence on the DFSG), Emacs, is one of the worst
offenders with its must-keep-propaganda clause. While I've given up on
trying to have any kind of position in the debate of what to do about the
DFSG-conflict problem, I will say that I am also one of those who feel
this stinks of hypocrisy, and who completely fail to understand why there
should be a material licensing difference between a program and its
documentation.
In any case, this is not the place to discuss Emacs, so the above is only
meant to shed some light on the background of this debate.
MfG Kai