[Dev] [Votation] Package freedom guidelines, what to do next

[Michał Masłowski]

> I think that Parabola should be an authentic example of freedom so,
> please, no exceptions.
> Always Free Software and Free Culture.

Details from #parabola:

21:54 < GuestOne> Are there non-FDL-licensed nonfree works that we want to include?
21:54 < GuestOne>   Or maybe instead we should have an exception for GNU packages?
21:54 < GuestOne> NO!
21:56 < GuestOne> please refuse all sort of non-free stuff in parabola, there are no reasons to include it, no exceptions!
22:02 < GuestOne> parabola should be a true example of freedom
[...]
22:12 < mtjm> it might be easy, Debian already has GNU packages with nonfree parts stripped
22:12 < mtjm> (and many removed them upstream to be included in Debian)
22:13 < mtjm> what about freely licensed nonfunctional data without sources?
22:15 < fauno> like a cc-by-sa pdf book?
22:16 < mtjm> or bitmaps of game art rendered using Blender
22:16 < mtjm> it had no source in one game, so it isn't included in Debian
22:16 < GuestOne> FSF is permissive if you talk about this, but i like the Debian way (always sources)
22:17 < mtjm> if A is a binary made from unpublished source B, users can edit both, B is easier to edit, should we not include A?
22:18 < mtjm> it's not clear in case of fonts, hyphenation patterns and other non-program useful data
22:22 < GuestOne> if Free Culture is a base of Parabola we should respect it including just free stuff also for non functional data
22:24 < mtjm> these examples are for functional data
22:25 < mtjm> it might be harder to decide what is the source for nonfunctional data
22:25 < GuestOne> this is my point of view: data should be free in any case
22:26 < GuestOne> functional or non functional
22:26 < GuestOne> i think the same thing if we talk about games

My comments:

- we should keep the "free software or free culture" rule to accept the
  four clause BSD license

- we should check for what packages Debian changes sources, we would do
  it for many of them (e.g. GNU packages with invariant sections)

- are FDL cover texts trivial enough to be accepted?  I don't see there
  as much culture as in the invariant essays included in some manuals,
  while they are/were a more common issue.

- we should keep an exception for license texts

- the meaning of source is unclear for non-program works (like fonts or
  drawings), many editable works in e.g. TeXLive were made from slightly
  more editable forms that are not published
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20121225/3b1a120c/attachment.sig>