Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:42:58 -0800, Brian Nelson <email@example.com> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:39:17 -0800, Brian Nelson <email@example.com>
>>> I disagree. It is not clear to me these would suddenly become
>>> bugs after sarge's release.
>> I am not sure how I can help with that. However, no one seems to be
>> arguing that the GFDL meets the requirements of the DFSG. The SC
>> shal require everything in main to do so post sarge. Ergo, any
>> material in main that does not meet the DFSG needs be removed --
>> which seems to be a working definition of a release critical bug
>> (release critical for etch).
> But the changes to the SC were "editorial", and the consensus seems
> to be that everything in Debian is "software" anyway, so why doesn't
> the current SC mean exactly the same as the new one?
*Sigh*. Again, for people who classify the changes as
editorial, yes, there were no changes; we are just taking our own
sweet time to confirm to the SC.
Not everyone interpreted the SC like this set of people, and
thus there were differing policies in place. With the clarification
of what, to me, was an editorial change, we are all now on the same
Or, looking at your post, maybe not.
"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is,
`What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C