Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
> non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still
> distributing GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we should get serious
> about fixing that, and as part of that that we should release the
> following statement (or one like it) on the GFDL:
> ---
> Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seconded. This has been constantly redebated and rediscussed and we
really should come to a final conclusion about it one way or the other.
One note, which doesn't affect my second: It may be worthwhile to
explicitly say "GNU Free Documentation License 1.2" in that heading and
elsewhere in the text, just in case the FSF fixes at least the DRM and
transparent copy provisions in a new release. As-is, the versioning is
not mentioned until the how to fix section, which makes sense right now
but which may look strange if read from the perspective of the future.
- --
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFDt2hF+YXjQAr8dHYRAoOXAKDBD3z+VlUqy0Ne7wZYhlecZFquhwCcCOtB
wqX22E1oovvyxil/7HMAH0o=
=FHIn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: