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

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

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 01:42:57AM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> 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.

AFAIK, ftp-masters only reject a package if inclusion and distribution
in Debian would be illegal.  This is not the case with the GFDL.

I think in a typical case, the decision is up to the package maintainer,
and if the maintainer doesn't agree, the tech committee may resolve this
issue.  However, since the GFDL is much broader in scope, it is
something the entire project should have to decide upon.

debian-legal is merely used for discussion, not for decision-making.

For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!

Reply to: