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

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

md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Nov 17, "Brian M. Carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> wrote:
>> > I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation
>> > because some people do not like its license will help the distribution
>> > and/or the cause of free software.
>> I don't like a lot of licenses, specifically those that are confusing
>> and long and contain an "Exhibit A", because they are hard to read and
>> understand.  But that does not make them *non-free*.  What I have a
>> specific objection to in this case is the fact that the license is
>> non-free, not that it is long, or confusing.  You are using a strawman
>> example by distorting my position.
> No, you missed the point. The point is that it's not important what
> position you hold, but that whatever your position (or mine) is, it's
> not the criteria that developers should use to determine if they need
> to remove something from the distribution.

The position that matters is that of the ftpmasters, and they usually
delegate to debian-legal.  Now however much you may or may not like
debian-legal, they are usually the ones that decide this.

>> What will help the cause of free software is if we refuse to
>> compromise on freedom within the Debian distribution.  That is, in my
> The DFSG has always been a compromise, see clause 4. It was needed to
> get TeX in debian, or most people in the free software community would
> have considered the project a joke, like it's quickly approaching to be.
> And every license is a compromise on the spectrum of different liberties
> which can be granted or not granted to different entities, it's not
> obvious at all that the specific set of compromises made by the GFDL are
> unacceptable.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

>> opinion, the best thing for the users and for the distribution.  And
>> furthermore, in my bugs, I am offering a possibility to move the
>> documentation to non-free.  That may be removing it from the
>> distribution, but it will still exist and be apt-get'able.
> I understand you want to become a developer. Then you should know that
> non-free is not part of Debian.

Whatever gave you that idea?  I have not once said in this thread (or
in any other, AFAIK) that I wanted to be a Debian Developer.  Maybe
someone said something on -private, I don't know.  Now, the reality is
that I would, *maybe* sometime in the future.  But it is not an urgent
desire by any stretch of the imagination, or I would have already
filed an NM application.

Also, I have known that non-free is not part of Debian for almost as
long as I have known about Debian; Graham Wilson converted me from Red
Hat and taught me what I needed to know about Debian.

Reply to: