Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:06:28AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:02:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > I ask you to contribute to Debian's progress, and not to impede it.
> > > There simply HAS BEEN NO PROBLEM before. The GFDL is new, but the
> > > principles involved are NOT; they are WELL-TRAVELED GROUND, and it is
> > Sorry, I don't think this is the case. While the FSF may have established
> > that they're willing to ignore certain crucial freedoms for data and
> > documentation, Debian hasn't done anything similar.
> Except that Debian has, in fact, included the Emacs manual since its
> very inception, right?
Debian has also included KDE in contrib in the past, in spite of the
GPL/non-GPL conflict, included unlicensed/non-free stuff in the upstream
xfree86 tarball, included a number of packages without any licensing
information, and included a number of non-free packages in main.
Especially for packages which've been around a long time, there's a not
completely trivial possibility that they've been allowed in main due to
oversight, or an inadequate understanding of the issues.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
"Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Reply to: