Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Talking about software distributions on the list

[Simon Ward]

On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 12:14:56PM +0000, Simon Ward wrote:
> I think trying to make that distinction is confusing. Let’s not make it
> more complex than it already is.
> 
> For the purposes of this, a free system distribution or free software
> distribution is to meet the Guidelines for Free System Distributions,
> which specifically excludes the types of documentation that are
> considered non‐DFSG‐free:
> 
>     ““Information for practical use” includes software, documentation,
>     fonts, and other data that has direct functional applications. It
>     does not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than
>     functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment.”
> 
> A DFSG‐free system that also gets rid of support/promotion of non‐free
> software might be considered “more free” than those that only just meet
> the requirements, but I haven’t tried to classify systems this far.
> Putting more marks on the scale might improve accuracy, but it also
> makes it more complex for discussion.

I would like to add: there is nothing stopping you from mentioning that
a distribution contains non‐DFSG‐free documentation if you know that for
a fact. I’m just not making it a requirement to do so.

I do not have sufficient data to say which distributions do and do not
contain GFDL documentation with invariant sections. I do have data to
say which distributions meet the guidelines readily available from the
GNU project web pages.

Unless we start a separate initiative to classify systems according to
guidelines that include a requirement for documentation to be free,
which I imagine to be non‐trivial, I don’t think it is practical to
require that discussion take this into account.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature