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

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.


Reply to: