Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> 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.
> 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
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
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.