Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????
Le Saturday 25 October 2008 10:56:56 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit :
> Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Could you please elaborate here? The DFSG does not require us to have or
> > ship source code for non-program works, and if documentation is being
> > rejected on the basis of a *source* requirement (as distinct from a
> > licensing issue), then I think we have a problem.
> Well, we ftpmasters and assistants routinely REJECT packages
> containing binary components without source, eg. PDF documentation. We
> base this policy on the DFSG as explained in
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 which very clearly states
> that documentation needs to comply with the DFSG.
The resolution states that GFDL licence does not fit for main, mainly because
it has invariant sections, which are not *modifiable*.
Extending a resolution beyond its original scope does sound broken an
dangerous to me.
Furthermore, request to have the source is a subjective thing. How would you
provide the source of a (free) WAV file then ?
Since the licence comming with the pdf was, up to what I read and understand,
compatible with DFSG, in particular right to reproduce, distribute and
*modify*, I completely fails to see the motivations for such a decision.