On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 10:31:59AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes: > > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:40:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> I did. I feel my packages are not buggy, lacking a position > >> statement by the project. > > > > So, what we ship in main shall not be a function of whether the works in > > it are DFSG-free or not, but shall instead depend on whether or not the > > Debian Project has passed a General Resolution specifically withdrawing > > them. > > If the software has been in Debian since the beginning and has always > had non-free political texts (AIUI, this is true of GNU/Emacs and > probably other various older GNU software), I think that's a reasonable > stance. Even if a legitimate position, that's not a complete solution to the problem. The FSF has been relicensing GNU Manuals that were previously under DFSG-free terms under the GNU FDL, and adding Invariant Sections to manuals that previously had none. This fact has been documented several times on the debian-legal mailing list. Examples include the GAWK Manual, the GDB Manual, the GNU Make Manual, the Texinfo Manual. -- G. Branden Robinson | I suspect Linus wrote that in a Debian GNU/Linux | complicated way only to be able to branden@debian.org | have that comment in there. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Lars Wirzenius
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature