Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
Steve Kemp <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
>> This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom.
>> Bugs will be filed:
>> 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
>> 2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of
>> the material in their copyright files;
>> 3) at serious severity (DP sec. 2.2.1 and 12.5);
>> 4) with reportbug -m (maintonly@);
>> 5) by a human, with all facts checked first.
> Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have
> a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after
> Sarge's release?
> Here's the result I'm thinking of:
No, you agreed to revert the Social Contract to its previous wording,
IIRC. The Social Contract as currently worded (with that vote in
consideration) states that "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software".
debian-legal interprets that to mean that (and please correct me if I
am misstating the consensus) the Debian distribution must consist
completely of free software. So if it is not software or it is not
free, then it would not be qualified to be in the Debian distribution.
Also, I think that even if those bugs in category 1) were ignored
until after the release (which would not make me happy), those bugs in
category 2) are still release-critical. And if you are correct and
"we" did agree to such a thing, then the instant that Debian releases
sarge will be the instant that these will be serious. So fixing them
sooner rather than later is better for our users and free software.
 Please note that I am not a DD, and if I had been at the time of
the vote, I would have voted for Proposal F.