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

Re: Discussion - non-free software removal

Thomas Bushnell wrote:
> Hrm.  I think we should ask the RFC editors for a minor change, which
> would permit modified versions provided they are clearly identified as
> not the RFC.

Good idea. Not sure if it's practical retroactively to get a license
change given that eg, Postel is dead. But..

Simon Richter wrote:
> iWhy does the mountain have to go to the prophet? I think it is time for
> some Debian Free Documentation Guidelines, which actually know about the
> special requirements for documentation

I think it's interesting that even in the context of a thread on
removing our mostly useless non-free section -- which proves how
effective is our policy WRT what is free enough for debian -- there is
still agitation to dilute that policy for documentation. Such a dual

see shy jo

Attachment: pgpstDzT9mXIp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: