On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:38:36PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> 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>
My next post to -devel-announce will discuss some of these finer details.
In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some
more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all
gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies.
Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp.
Given there's more ambiguity in whether to apply the DFSG to documentation
than there is in whether the GFDL passes the DFSG, it seemed most
sensible just to exempt documentation from the DFSG for sarge; so that's
the policy.
> 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."
It'll presumably change after sarge -- which is why I've been leaving
the bugs marked serious and just adding sarge-ignore tags -- but there's
no point making that decision before we have to.
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.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
Attachment:
pgpX4Ywy4VOW9.pgp
Description: PGP signature