Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 07:27:15PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> Steve Kemp <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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.
Your interpretation as to the meaning of these bugs for sarge is
incorrect. If you disagree, please feel free to ask the technical
committee for adjudication, and furthermore explain why you didn't do
this months ago. The intent is quite clear from the text of the GR, and
I find it impossible to believe that a reader of debian-devel-announce
could not have understood the release team's interpretation of the
result in July. The discussion on debian-ctte in July seems to agree
with me and with Steve, although a formal opinion was never issued.
*This is not a sarge issue.*
Colin Watson [email@example.com]