Christopher Browne writes:

> Clinging to sanity, mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) mumbled into her beard:
>> Falk Hueffner writes:
>>
>>> Spamme Now writes:
>>>
>>>> >>>>> "Måns" == Måns Rullgård writes:
>>>> Måns> are things that are not DFSG free. This includes the manuals
>>>> Måns> for many GNU programs.
>>>>
>>>> yes this does not make any sense at all about the manuals. Their
>>>> reason for not including some GNU manuals has no logic. If you use the
>>>> debian reason for not including the GNU manuals then why do they
>>>> include the GNU programs
>>>
>>> Because they have a different license. Duh. Try getting a clue next
>>> time before you open your mouth.
>>
>> But why is the GFDL so terrible that it can't be included in Debian?
>> There are no legal obstacles for inclusion, only political and
>> philosophical.
>
> The Debian folks concluded that GFDL-licensed manuals weren't "free
> enough" for inclusion in the distribution.

That's exactly what I'm trying to get at. What's the point in
requiring things to be more "free" than is required for legal
distribution?

> I was involved a little bit with wording of GFDL, way back when, so I
> certainly have mixed feelings about this.
>
> On the one hand, the intent certainly was for the documentation to be
> "freely redistributable," and when the Debian folks consider it to not
> be that, something seems odd.
>
> On the other hand, the GNU FDL does impose some requirements (mostly
> regarding disclosure of changes) that I think the Debian folks
> _rationally_ decided didn't fit.
>
> Note that if the Debian Project was what they are oft-characterize as,
> namely a set of wild-eyed "Stallmanites" that want to gasp in every
> notion that RMS ever belches out, then they would presumably have
> blindly went along with the GNU FDL.

Yes, the disagreement over the GFDL quite surprised me.

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se

In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) transmitted:
> Christopher Browne writes:
>
>> Clinging to sanity, mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) mumbled into her beard:
>>> Falk Hueffner writes:
>>>
>>>> Spamme Now writes:
>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> "Måns" == Måns Rullgård writes:
>>>>> Måns> are things that are not DFSG free. This includes the manuals
>>>>> Måns> for many GNU programs.
>>>>>
>>>>> yes this does not make any sense at all about the manuals. Their
>>>>> reason for not including some GNU manuals has no logic. If you use the
>>>>> debian reason for not including the GNU manuals then why do they
>>>>> include the GNU programs
>>>>
>>>> Because they have a different license. Duh. Try getting a clue next
>>>> time before you open your mouth.
>>>
>>> But why is the GFDL so terrible that it can't be included in Debian?
>>> There are no legal obstacles for inclusion, only political and
>>> philosophical.
>>
>> The Debian folks concluded that GFDL-licensed manuals weren't "free
>> enough" for inclusion in the distribution.
>
> That's exactly what I'm trying to get at. What's the point in
> requiring things to be more "free" than is required for legal
> distribution?

The point is that it is not merely distribution that they are
interested in; they also need to permit modification and
_re_distribution, because Debian Linux (and Debian AnythingElse) isn't
burned onto CDs by the Debian organization itself.

GFDL wouldn't cause them much inconvenience directly; the concern is
for downstream redistributors of Debian's distribution.

I think they're being a _bit_ anal-retentive about it, but I don't
have any grand problem with there being a distribution that _is_ very
careful about this sort of thing.

After all, if the whole world had actually been using Red Hat 9, the
recent changes there would have led to _excruciatingly_ painful
choices, to the point of people maybe having to drop Linux in favor of
something else.

>> Note that if the Debian Project was what they are oft-characterize as,
>> namely a set of wild-eyed "Stallmanites" that want to gasp in every
>> notion that RMS ever belches out, then they would presumably have
>> blindly went along with the GNU FDL.
>
> Yes, the disagreement over the GFDL quite surprised me.

Maybe there isn't all the blind "cultism" that some accusers
suggest...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/finances.html
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

On 7 Feb 2004 16:57:31 GMT, Chris Share wrote:
>Maybe so... but the x86 install CD comes with 2.2.20 and 2.4.18, and
>there's nothing to stop you installing 2.4.24 or 2.6.2 when you have the
>system up and running.

The Alpha install CD only has 2.2.20.
I'm currently about to start installing a small Debian system to a second
hard disk, upgrade that to 2.4.x, then do the Gentoo install from there.

>>>>> "Falk" == Falk Hueffner writes:

Falk> Spamme Now writes:
>> >>>>> "Måns" == Måns Rullgård writes:
Måns> are things that are not DFSG free. This includes the manuals
Måns> for many GNU programs.
>> yes this does not make any sense at all about the manuals. Their
>> reason for not including some GNU manuals has no logic. If you use
>> the debian reason for not including the GNU manuals then why do
>> they include the GNU programs

Falk> Because they have a different license. Duh. Try getting a clue
Falk> next time before you open your mouth.

I heard that argument before about the license is different. Still
distribution is the same. However, this is one of those debian centric
issues that will never be worked out because once debian goes down a
path the rest is history. Overall debian is a good distribution, but
to say the least debian developers are trying for free software
perfection. What does that mean? I would suspect an excellent lawyer
could make a good legal argument that debian violates their own
free principles. These arguments are starting to become circular.

I guess we need the world court to rule on the matter to determine the
legality of free software distribution. I suspect that is coming one
day.

Foot in mouth again ;-))

Later,

Alan

>>>>> "Christopher" == Christopher Browne writes:

Christopher> I think they're being a _bit_ anal-retentive about it,
Christopher> but I don't have any grand problem with there being a
Christopher> distribution that _is_ very careful about this sort of
Christopher> thing.

Good point. Really this issue is a minor issue. If anyone wants the
GNU manuals, the manuals are located at http://www.gnu.org. It's nice
to have everything in one distribution, but no distribution will have
everything for many different reasons. debian is not the only
distribution that does not include something for one reason or
another.

Christopher> After all, if the whole world had actually been using
Christopher> Red Hat 9, the recent changes there would have led to
Christopher> _excruciatingly_ painful choices, to the point of people
Christopher> maybe having to drop Linux in favor of something else.

Very true. Looks like a dead topic with that comment.

Christopher> Maybe there isn't all the blind "cultism" that some
Christopher> accusers suggest...

Probably not. True to the cause, but all revolutions either die or
become the mainstream one day. Time will tell.

Later,

Alan