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

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material



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: pgpAJjfaB56MX.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: