Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Adam Warner <lists@consulting.net.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 13:12, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Adam Warner <lists@consulting.net.nz> wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > [message BCCed to aj]
> > > >
> > > > I wanted you all to be aware how Sarge is treating Documentation and the
> > > > DFSG: <http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt>
> > > >
> > > > Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable,
> > > > and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This
> > > > will likely become a requirement post-sarge.
> > >
> > > Why can't the offending packages just be moved to non-free? It isn't
> > > like there hasn't been enough warning.
> >
> > I would guess that's because we haven't committed to a decision yet.
> > :-(
>
> I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that
> has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on
> the glibc mailing list:
> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2003/debian-glibc-200308/msg00160.html>
>
> I in no way support any claims that clear majority agreement has not
> been reached. So in this respect sarge_rc_policy.txt should at least
> read: "This will become a requirement post-sarge."
That post says:
The people left who claim that we should allow GFDLed documents with
invariant sections into 'main' are...
I would hope that the other problems with this license will be
sufficient to make it non-free even for dovs without ainvariant
sections. Do we have a consensus on that?
In the meantime, if there's consnsus about invariant sections then I
don't see why they cn't be moved to non-free before november.
> > > > Given the aggressive (and endearingly optimistic) timetable of releasing
> > > > Sarge this December[0!] I support this pragmatic decision.
> > >
> > > Pragmatism is not the defining principle of the DFSG.
> >
> > With you 100%.
>
> It's a timing issue. Clear consensus has only occurred very recently. Do
> people want to see FTP uploads being rejected right this minute? The
> forthcoming release of Sarge gives everyone a clear and historical cut
> off date for implementing the consensus and gives archive maintainers a
> clear date for strictly enforcing policy.
I'd rather we stick to our principles, but clearly there isn't a
consensus on that.
Peter
Reply to: