On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:43:20PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > If we go the general resolution way, I propose the following: > > * First and foremost, we should ask our co-developers whether or not > we agree that Software and Documentation should fall under the same > set of rules to be considered free; thus, whether the DFSG can be > applied to "documentation". > * If the answer to that first question is that documentation cannot be > considered the same thing as software, we should define what we > understand to be 'software', and what we think is > 'documentation'. We should also define what documentation licenses > can be considered free, and what documentation licenses cannot. > > Ideas, comments, thoughts? A decision that the DFSG does not apply to documentation would immediately require either: a) A GR to modify the social contract to include a version for documentation (a waste of time IMO, since it should mean the same thing). or: b) The removal of all documentation from the Debian archive. That is what people have been alluding to by pointing at SC#1, in case it wasn't obvious. If your goal here is to expand Debian's definition of "free" to include things which are not currently acceptable, then you are essentially trying to fork the project. If not, then I don't see the point in wading through all that bureaucracy just to stay in one place. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgpi9q1YUD77h.pgp
Description: PGP signature