On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 07:17, Florian Weimer wrote: > Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes: > > > Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote: > >> To the readers of this message: if you are a Debian developer and you > >> do, or perhaps might, support including manuals covered by the GFDL > >> (without expecting it to change) in Debian, please write to me and > >> tell me. (I am not subscribed to debian-legal and could not handle > >> the volume of mail.) But before you send it, please see if I have > >> sent a further message to debian-legal saying "enough!" > > > > Your question has already been posed, and the answer is found here > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html > > No, the question was (carefully?) biased, ruling out several options. Several options that are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the GFDL is DFSG-free. We've been over this many times. debian-legal clearly believes that the GFDL does not meet the DFSG. Passing the DFSG is the *only* way anything can get into Debian. If you want something else to get into Debian, you need to propose definitions or guidelines on -project as a GR. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part