[Sussex] Distros

[Geoffrey J. Teale]

Paul Tansom <paul at aptanet.com> writes:>
> So a Debian CD without the non-Free sections would be a FSF "free"
> distribution, although with the technical ability to pull non-free
> packages into it if required - interesting grey area in terms of
> attempts to fit into the real world and make it easy to work with
> non-free software!

No, see my other response.

> That would seem to imply that the GFDL is not suitable for documenting
> GPL source code, since you are unable to quote the source code within
> the documentation in order to explain its workings. This is more a
> license for documenting usage of applications. (With the obvious proviso
> that if the original authors are happy with the dual license you could
> use it).

Not at all.  There are compatibility issues but dual licensing deals
with direct quotes, which are the only issue.  GFDL was specifically
designed for documentation relating to GPL code.  The idea that the
GFDL is somehow fundamentally unsuitable for the task comes purely
from the Debian project, the FSF routinely produces GFDL documentation
for GPL code. 


> Politics and software are not comfortable bedfellows - well, anything
> and politics are not comfortable bedfellows - well, anything and
> politics and the law are not comfortable bedfellows - well... oh dear I
> feel a Monty Python parody building, I had better stop there ;)

Agreed.  In another world it would be possible to have our cake and
eat it, in the real world we can't.  The GPL is also a license of this
kind, but it pre-existed Debian and so their policy allows it
explicitly.

Debian really do make some valid criticisms of the GFDL, they just
aren't ones it's easy to do anything about.

-- 
Geoff Teale
CMed Technology            -   gteale at cmedresearch.com
Free Software Foundation   -   tealeg at member.fsf.org

/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/