Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:12:06 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> 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.
It is not a bug unless there is a firm position statement by
Debian, or I, as the maintainer, am convinced of the fact.
>> 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.
I am taking the position that the release manager would not
put forth a release in gross violation of the social contract.
Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I believe in our RM.
>> Why should we not have a common solution?
> Everyone is free to discuss it on -legal. It's not a closed list.
I have no objection to people discussing whatever they wish on
>> 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.
If I determine that my packages are indeed shipping non free
material, than I shall ask for them to be removed from testing and
unstable; since not doing so would violate the social contract.
I am afraid the social contract trumps what the RM may say.
Dawn, n.: The time when men of reason go to bed. Ambrose Bierce, "The
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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