Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
* Mathieu Roy (yeupou@gnu.org) [030909 16:05]:
> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> a tapoté :
> > We have the DFSG for exactly this reasons: We (meaning the Debian
> > Project) can't decide what software is allowed in main by personal
> > preference, independent whether it's mine, the of the DPL or the RM
> Basically, if your involved in Debian, your personal preference should
> be near from the Debian position.
Oh, does Debian have a position on use of Emacs? Sorry, I'm likly
going to fail adopting that.
> I asked to think about a possible distinction for Debian between
> non-free software and GFDLed documentation.
You're asking about a distinction between non-free software and
non-free software. ("non-free" := everything, except it is "free";
"free" := meets the DFSG, "software" := representation of works in
machine-readable form)
> > And the DFSG draw a sharp line: Either a package matches the DFSG,
> > then it could be part of Debian,
> > and be uploaded to main. Or a package doesn't match. Then it can't
> > be part of main. There is nothing else to discuss at d-l
> And nothing will ever change? The distinction I'm talking about is not
> in the DFSG, that's correct.
>
> Now, do we refuse it because DFSG is a block of marble or because we
> think that there no valid reason to change?
For d-l the DFSG _are_ a block of marble. Everything else is off the
scope of this list.
And I didn't notice that you want to change the DFSG. Perhaps you
should look for some DDs for supporting a GR first. Otherwise the
discussion is just a waste of words.
Well, do you think it would be adaequate to put e.g. qmail into main?
What software would be acceptable for you to put into main? Can you
draw a sharp line, so that we are able to discuss about this?
And: A discussion about this would IMHO be much better suited on
-project or -devel, not on -legal.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: