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

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

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

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: