Re: Handling of GNU free documentation licence in Debian
Marco Cabizza <email@example.com> writes:
> Il giorno mer, 13/09/2006 alle 13.23 +0200, Florent Rougon ha scritto:
>> Elias Oltmanns <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > package gnus-doc in non-free be an appropriate solution? GNU stuff in
>> > non-free seems rather strange but would be funny anyway.
>> There is already a bunch of GNU software in non-free:
>> - make-doc
>> - texinfo-doc-nonfree
>> - autoconf-doc
>> - automake.*-doc
>> - tar-doc
>> - glibc-doc-reference
>> - gnu-standards
> And I would add "for the same reason".
> There has been some discussion lately about gnus, not from this point of
> view though, whereas there has been a _long_ dispute on GFDL, and that's
> the result.
> Anyway, I reckon shipping gnus-doc in non-free would be _the_ solution.
> You should take up some discussion on the matter ( perhaps starting from
> a bug report ( if there's not already one... ) ? ).
There has been a recent vote declaring GFDL without front- and
backcover texts (though the wording on the proposal was somewhat
ambiguous with regard to those) and invariant sections free.
It will probably not help with much GNU documentation since the GNU
maintainer guidelines prescribe front and back cover texts.
Those are minimal, but, well...
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum