On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in > >>much doubt on it > >where's the GR and the vote? hasn't happened. where's the policy > >decision? The policy decision's at http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt: ] Code in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs and ] in the source (including the .orig.tar.gz) ] ] 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. That'll likely have to be amended somewhat to reflect the discussions about firmware. > Until then, the DFSG apply to all software, not just programs. It may be able to be applied to all software, but it isn't being. One of the reasons people don't bother documenting all the decisions that get made is that the documentation that is available just seems to get ignored. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature