[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Donald Robertson
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:10:54 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0

On 03/20/2018 03:09 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> 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.

I've added this.

> 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
> checklist

I'm leaning towards keeping them separate for template because I think
it will be useful in terms of the historical record on a particular
case. If something gets stalled out due to issues with documentation or
other non-software functional data, it seems like it would be useful to
see that distinction. But I'm open to merging them if people think that
that isn't actually useful.
> 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
> checklist:

Thanks for adding this, I think it is very useful.
> * Non-functional Data

I've added this, it was just an oversight.

> * Trademarks

I had blended this into the name confusion checklist, but that's not
clear and also they are actually separate issues. So I've made a
separate section.

> * Patents

For this there isn't really anything to check, as we don't require them
to exclude something due to patent threats.

> * Contacting Upstream If You're Downstream

My understanding of this was that it was instructions for helping to get
issues fixed, but not something we can check off on from the list, but
if that is mistaken please let me know.

> * Please Teach Users about Free Software

This is another one where it didn't seem like disqualifying criteria;
something to suggest but that wouldn't bar a distribution from endorsement.

> perhaps these were seen as to subjective or unverifiable - but again i
> suggest that the "Non-functional Data" criteria be a checklist item
> [1]:
> [2]:

Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
Licensing & Compliance Manager
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone +1-617-542-5942
Fax +1-617-542-2652 ex. 56

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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