Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
Andreas Barth <email@example.com> wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG (firstname.lastname@example.org) [041118 02:40]:
>> When the new Social Contract changes go into effect (after the release
>> of sarge), the DFSG will apply in full force to documentation, and
>> there ain't nobody but nobody who thinks the GFDL passes the DFSG.
> That still doesn't convert the opinion of most frequent writers on
> debian-legal that the GFDL doesn't meet the SC into a decision to remove
> all packages with GFDL from Debian.
There's no realistic way whatsoever you can claim that V1.1 of the
social contract allows us to ship documentation that does not meet the
DFSG. I think everyone is fairly clear on that. The project has had two
opportunities to prevent this situation from arising, and has chosen not
to do so in both of them.
Nobody (and I really do mean nobody) has the right to ignore a clear-cut
violation of the social contract because they disagree with it.
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com