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

Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files

Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <jsogo@debian.org> writes:

> El mié, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +0000, Brian M. Carlson escribió:
> [...]
>> >   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:
>> >
>> > 	http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
>> 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.
>   And documentation is not software.

Have you heard of the Lisp HTML program? Which is it, documentation or

And while some documentation is not software, documentation is treated
as if it were software for the purposes of evaluating its freeness.

>> 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"[0] 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.
>  No. You have only detected some packages having GFDL documentation.
> Surgering them now will mean a lot of work, that we should concentrate
> in releasing Sarge, not in other different stuff.

I have offered (what I feel is) a very reasonable offer to hold almost
all of these bugs in abeyance until the release of sarge.  See my
reply to Colin Watson.

>> [0] 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.
>  Whatever you had voted, what counts is what has been decided by
> majority.

I did not claim otherwise.  I attempted to provide insight into my

Reply to: