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

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

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:12:06 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net> said: 

> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> 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
 legal either.

>> 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
Devil's Dictionary"
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: