Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:52:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:06:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I've heard three different stories describing this GR:
> > 1. it contained only Editorial amendments and didn't change anything
> > 2. the Debian developers decided in this GR that documentation has to
> > fulfill the full DFSG guidelines
> > 3. many Debian mistakenly agreed with it because they mistakenly
> > beliefed after reading the title that it only contained editorial
> > and no actual changes
>
> The SC, prior to GR2004-003, already required that documentation be
> DFSG-free. I've never seen any strong argument otherwise, and
> GR2004-003 simply made it explicitly clear. (GR2004-004 didn't make
> any sense at all, nor does it make any sense that Sarge can ship
> with non-free documentation, and at the time I found the posts of
> the RM on the topic to make no sense at all, but I was satisfied with
> the results of GR2004-003 and am able to bear the strangeness of
> GR2004-004 for now, since it'll expire on its own.)
>...
If it contained only editorial changes as you are saying, you've thereby
proven that your statement the documentation licencing was "firmly
decided" was wrong.
> Glenn Maynard
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: