reopen 212525 tags 212525 sarge-ignore thanks On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:20:21 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> said: > I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity, > and is very useful to maintainers who need advice on licensing > issues. And I shall stipulate that there is a rough consensus on > debian-legal about the GFDL. > This decision to exclude GNU documentation from Debian, given > the sheer volume of GNU software in Debian, is likely to be > controversial. And we need to have a common stance on this issue. If > this is all so very obvious and clear cut, why is it so hard to first > get a position statement from the DPL, and possibly the release > manager? I think there is a fairly clear position statement on this from the Release Manager, embodied in the use of the sarge-ignore tag instead of trying to reduce the severity of the bugs in question. I.e., they are being regarded as non-RC policy violations. (Or at the very least, it means AJ is unwilling to stick his foot where you just have by declaring them non-bugs.) > Why should we not have a common solution? Should I just move > make, make-doc, and Gnus to non-free, in accordance with the spirit > of upstreams desires (do not separate the political text from > software)? > Some have asserted (incorrectly), that the binary packages > would be no different, and end users should see no change. The fact > that people make such assertion shows that they have not investigated > the amount of changes to the packages that would result, not the > decrease in utility. *I* assert that because the GFDL clearly does not comply with the DFSG, and because it is not clear that a GR to supplement the DFSG with a set of DFDG will pass, maintainers of packages containing GFDL works should take responsibility of their own accord and start looking for a GFDL-less solution sooner rather than later precisely to avoid this decrease in utility. It is presumptious on your part to close a license bug without a clear consensus that the license *is* ok. There is an outstanding issue here, and there is a need to be able to track the packages affected by this issue. Individual opinions on the freeness of the GFDL are secondary to this. If changing a large number of packages can no longer be done without official sanction, then neither can bugs such as this be considered closed without a similar official statement. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpI9tErSVJd0.pgp
Description: PGP signature