[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: