Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free
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.)
(And if people really are voting for a GR after only reading the title,
I'd be even more disappointed, but I just don't believe that.)
In any event, all of this is irrelevant: if people really think that
non-free documentation should be allowed in Debian, propose a GR to
allow it. Nothing short of that will make it so. If people really
think they were "tricked", fine--fix it with another GR. Unless and
until that happens, Debian's position is very clear.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: