On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 02:39:17PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes: > > Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> writes: > >> I'm saying debian-legal is irrelevant to this bug mass filing. Brian > >> proposed to submit these bugs on the grounds that there is a consensus > >> in debian-legal that the DFSG is non-free. I say that is not for > >> debian-legal to decide. > > Good grief; it's reasonable to file a bug merely because I in my own > > judgment think a package has a bug, and this applies to license bugs > > as much as technical bugs. > These are bugs that may be prompted closed by a maintainer, because they > are not clearly bugs at all. That is exactly the sort of mass filing > that should *not* happen. > > I have already said that I think Brian should wait on filing GFDL bugs > > until after the release of sarge, because it is only then that the > > Social Contract changes swing into effect. > I disagree. It is not clear to me these would suddenly become bugs > after sarge's release. Oh, for God's sake, pull your head out of the sand. We had a three-month-long flamewar this year about whether and when data should be subject to the DFSG, and it was a heated flamewar precisely because *everyone involved understood the consequences of removing non-free documentation from main*. Why do we need to have another flamewar about whether a clearly non-free license is non-free, on no other basis than that you have a grudge against the license evaluation process? Have you read <http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml>? Are you aware that Manoj, and many of the other signatories listed on that page, are not part of the debian-legal group whose efforts at understanding licenses you so rudely dismiss? Do you understand that the GFDL question has been discussed among a much larger audience than debian-legal, and *no one* has offered arguments to support the claim that none of the issues raised in Manoj's position statement are DFSG problems? It's true that there's not a consensus about whether the DFSG *should* apply to data and documentation (although there was a sufficient majority sharing this belief for the GR on the question to stand), but there is certainly a consensus about whether the GFDL is a DFSG-free license. If you don't actually have anything new to contribute to the understanding of the GFDL vis à vis the DFSG, I'd suggest there are better ways you could be helping Debian besides sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "there is no consensus" on a public mailing list. How about rewriting GFDL documentation, or fixing currently open RC bugs? ObBug: 281181 -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature