On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ? > > > > > > > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to > > > > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example : > > > > open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE". > > > > > > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages > > > are under the GNU FDL. > > > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not? > > I think that the point being made is that, if the GNU FDL is not a free > license, then we will need to redefine "free" or watch our project > splinter into uselessness. This should have been dealt with sooner. But the past three times the FDL has been discussed on this list, no concensus was reached. The only thing we can be certain of is that there are enough problems with it to prevent any consensus. Call me a pessimist if you like, but I suspect that we'll get no different results this time. Nobody wants to bear the fallout of a conclusion against the FDL, and no attempt to revise the DFSG has ever succeeded. I expect the issue will eventually be dropped (again) without resolution and either Debian will continue to cover its ears and hum real loud, unless someone is foolish enough to believe that they can gather a supermajority of the project to modify the DFSG. -- Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sanity is counterproductive * HomeySan waits for the papa john's pizza to show up <ravenos> mm. papa john's. <HomeySan> hopefully they send the cute delivery driver <ravenos> they dont have that here. <Dr_Stein> why? you gonna eat the driver instead?
Description: PGP signature