Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic protection against modification
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Steve Langasek:
>
>>> Wouldn't it be better to admit a mistake and cancel or correct it
>>> then not to look too close at what one has done?
>>> It doesn't get any better by not looking.
>>
>> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free"
>> in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". We
>> promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
>> according to these guidelines. We will support people who create or use
>> both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system
>> require the use of a non-free component.
>>
>> So you are asserting that license texts are a "component of the Debian
>> system", in contradiction to the claims of those who actually voted for
>> this GR?
>
> What is a "compoment of the Debian system"? Is there any other
> reasonable interpretation but "shipped as part of main"?
Offhand, it seems reasonable to exclude anything which can be very clearly
delineated and identified as separate from the rest of 'main' if there is
general agreement that it is sensible to do so.
License texts are supposed to be only in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright
and /usr/share/common-licenses, which is a pretty clear separation and
delineation. I think.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: