Re: glibc 2.3.2-2 goes unstable
>> There is definite consensus that packages which contain GFDL
>> with Invariant Sections are unequivocally not free software. Sorry.
>From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:
> n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn:
> -- Guido
The majority of posters to debian-legal; the majority of Debian
developers posting to debian-legal; and the majority of Debian
developers expressing an opinion with grounds on any public
Debian list. Large majorities of all of the above, it appears.
Is that enough majorities for you? If not, I can probably add "the
majority of people with positions of special responsibility in Debian".
(Of course I can't say "the majority of Debian developers", since most
of them appear to prefer to remain utterly silent. Silence cannot be
assumed to be an opinion in *either* direction.)
The people left who claim that we should allow GFDLed documents with
invariant sections into 'main' are, almost though not quite without
exception, claiming that these documents are not 'software' in the sense
of the Social Contract. Accordingly, they agree that they are not 'free
software' (if it's not 'software', it's certainly not 'free software').
(They seem to be using an unusual interpretation of the English phrase
"Debian will remain 100% free software", under which Debian can contain an
arbitrary amount of non-free non-software.) But to err on the side of
caution, I'm not even including them in the majorities I mentioned
above. If I did, it would be 'near unanimity' of opinion.
You don't need to quote dictionaries at me. I know the meaning of
'consensus' and I see consensus.
Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>