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

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



On Friday, 26 Sep 2003 09:43:26 -0500, Steve Langasek
<vorlon@netexpress.net>  said:

> 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> s

> >    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.,

	Attaching labels that are the purvue of the release manager to
 certain bugs does not, in fact, constitute a position statement. All
 that means is that the release manager does not consider theissue
 important enough to stop the release -- indeed, were he concerned
 that things violate the social contract, you would think we would
 delay the release, neh?

> 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.)

	I consider the fact that we are not delaying the release to be
 a nod towards not thinking these are DFSG/social contract violations. 

> >    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

	Well, nice to know you have telepathy and an ability to
 predict the future. And I suppose you, as with all of us, have the
 right to assert anything you wish: I assert that hot mango chutney is
 better than sweet mango chutney.

> 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.

	That, too, is a nice sentiment. The rich nations should make a
 better effort to fight global poverty. And people in the middle east
 should live in harmony with nature and each other.

	I am not sure that that would improve make, but who knows. 

>
> It is presumptious on your part to close a license bug without a
> clear consensus that the license *is* ok.  There is an outstanding

	I close bugs on my packages all the time based on my judgement
 alone. If this is presumption, then indeed, friends, I am guilty. 

> 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.

	So create a WikiPage. The BTS is there to resolve issues that
 users have with make, and in my opinion, make is not buggy -- at
 least until the DPL, or  the developers by the means of a position
 statement make a determination to the contrary. 

	I am closing the bug again. You can, or course, call for the
 tech ctte to override this, or a GR, or get me removed from the
 project, as you wish.

	manoj
-- 
Whenever anyone says, "theoretically," they really mean, "not really."
Dave Parnas
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C



Reply to: