Re: Missing documentation for autoconf
Simon Huerlimann <huerlisi@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...] I'll advice guys I introduced to
> Debian to also write such a mail once they get into similar situations,
> though.
Unless they can add some new argument as to why a manual under
an FDL-1.2 adware licence actually follows the DFSG, simply
writing here will not change much. The advice in autoconf.html
in autoconf_2.59a-8.diff.gz looks like bad advice to me.
It would be far more useful for them to ask the licensors of
the manuals to use free software licences (preferably the
same as the software it documents) or at least dual-license,
so that the manuals can be included in free software operating
system distributions.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: