On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > 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? Because they have no authority to make such statements? > This issue is not cut and dried (indeed, it took even the > mavens on -legal over a year to reach the current position). This is essentially false. It was fairly rapidly concluded that the GFDL can be a non-free license under certain conditions, and that this use qualifies. It took a bit longer to determine that it was non-free under all conditions. We then spent over a year trying to find alternatives to removing all the GFDL documentation from main, and failed. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature