Re: glibc 2.3.2-2 goes unstable
GOTO Masanori said:
> * #181493: glibc: Sun RPC code is non-free
> * #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free
>
> I discussed with jbailey in debconf3 that these bugs should be
> downgraded. Because these bugs are difficult to fix quickly,
> and actually these are not only glibc problem but also other
> programs which include RPC code or GFDL documents. BTW, do we
> have a consensus for packages which hold GFDL documents?
There is definite consensus that packages which contain GFDL documents
with Invariant Sections are unequivocally not free software. Sorry.
(GFDL documents without Invariant Sections might not be free either,
although I'm not sure there's consensus yet.)
These bugs shouldn't be left downgraded long term because they're
violations of the Social Contract.
Since they're preexisting, they probably shouldn't block new versions
of glibc from going into testing, however. If you can convince the
release manager to mark them 'sarge-ignore', that's probably the best
thing to do. (That's what he did with the GFDL bugs against GCC.)
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Reply to: