Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> 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.
Right. There is consensus in -legal that the GFDL is not a free software
license (even RMS agrees).
> 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.
Huh? It's not a free software license, but because we use `so much of
it', it's not a bug until 50% of developers agree? That doesn't make
sense. Quantity is not an issue here.
> 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?
Note that they haven't publicably disagreed with -legal. The release
manager says he won't treat it as an RC bug for sarge, but he didn't say
it wasn't a bug.
> Why should we not have a common solution?
Everyone is free to discuss it on -legal. It's not a closed list.
> 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)?
That would be your choice to make, as maintainer. It wouldn't be very
productive, but it's your choice.
If fixing this bug is a lot a work, then leave it open until you can do
it. It's apparently not even RC for sarge. But you are saying it's not
a bug because there are many affected packages.
Peter
Reply to: