[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on

From: bill-auger
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:09:19 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0

thanks - that was a good explanation - the FSDG really only speaks of
"software, documentation, fonts, and other data" as being functional and
"artistic works and statements of opinion" as non-functional - it is
non-intuitive see any "data" as being functional - even source code is
just data until it is compiled or interpreted - i agree that exhaustive
explanations should not be the goal but anything as vague as "other
data" should be explained to some degree - the rest are explained fairly
well already - i have just one suggestion

from the FSDG:

  “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.

criteria 1.8, 1.9, and 1.10:

  1.8 All software under a free license with source code provided.
  1.9 Documentation under a free license.
  1.10 Other "Information for practical use" under a free license.

according to the FSDG, "Information for practical use" is an umbrella
term that includes software and documentation along with "other data" -
so the FSDG only actually distinguishes between 2 distinct classes of
copyright-able works (the practical sort and the unpractical sort) -
therefore it seems to me that all three of these  1.8, 1.9, and 1.10
could be combined into one general criteria - such as:

  1.8 All "Information for practical use" under a free license with
source code provided where applicable.

then for completeness, another could be added like:

  1.9 All "Non-functional Data" must be freely distributable.

is there a useful reason to keep these as separate criteria? - the only
reason i can think of is that the separate items are more cleanly
associated with the relevant sections of the FSDG - even as such, i
think the "Non-functional Data" criteria should be itemized on this

other than that, all of the criteria on the checklist do correspond to
some section of the FSDG and are well-explained there - so i wonder
should the previous checklist[1] page be removed? - it should at least
be renamed to avoid confusion with this new definitive checklist;
perhaps to something like: "Additional Tips for Reviewers"

i have added a wiki page containing a table of links correlating each
criteria to a section of the FSDG[2] - but for completeness, i will note
that there are some sections of the FSDG that are not represented on the

* Non-functional Data
* Trademarks
* Patents
* Contacting Upstream If You're Downstream
* Please Teach Users about Free Software

perhaps these were seen as to subjective or unverifiable - but again i
suggest that the "Non-functional Data" criteria be a checklist item


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]