en/debian/dfsg-interpretation.txt
2004-06-21
If you assume, you make an ass out of you and me
MJ Ray implied that anyone who thought the DFSG only applied to programs, not documentation, was negligent about DFSG and that the only such people who are exempt from that criticism are those who joined Debian before the Social Contract. That is blatantly wrong and bordering on outrageous revisionism.
I joined Debian two-three years after the Social Contract was adopted. I read it and understood it (at least thought I did) when I joined. However, there was no "documentation is software and therefore must fall under DFSG" movement back then. It seemed to me then, and I still believe it, that the opposite was a silent consensus. I one uploaded into main a package containing almost nothing but explicitly non-free documents. (The documents have since been freed.) I was sincere in that attempt and in my argumentation at that time, and at least one of the then-current ftpmaster team must have agreed with me, since the package passed NEW checks. (Granted, I also argued that the packages would be later freed, but that should not have affected the decision if nonfree documents really had been deemed to be against the SC.)
It seems to me that the current consensus is a recent one, certainly less than four years old. I have decided to honor that consensus, but don't come tell me that I was dishonest when I joined!
21:09 - /en/debian - 5 comments
