Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 08:45, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Similarly, it would be a lot easier to just define documentation to be
> > software "for the purposes of the DFSG". But does it make sense?
>
> The alternative is that documentation will be treated as something we
> are enjoined by the Social Contract from distributing at all. Debian
> Will Remain 100% Free Software. This may have been poor phrasing on
> the part of the authors, but there is *not* a clear consensus that this
> is the case;
I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly
phrased; where we differ is on how to clarify it. In the absense of
such a resolution, I don't think we're forced to woodenly apply those
broken principles; instead, we try to fix them first.
> which means that your only remedy is a GR to modify/clarify
> the Social Contract and/or the DFSG, and until that happens, no amount
> of debate here will prevent packages from being bounced out of main if
> their documentation licenses do not meet the DFSG.
A GR appears necessary no matter what route we choose.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: