Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
Colin Watson <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.*
I am going to assume that you got my messages out of order. I said
that I would hold off on filing the GFDL bugs until after sarge.
Also, due to the rather hostile reaction to the original message, I
have decided that I will wait until sarge is released before filing
any bugs. That way, y'all can continue the flamewar over debian-legal
and its place in the organization ;-) and I can write manpages for
manpages-dev. Then everyone is happy, okay?
 Yes, I realize it's frozen.