Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 01:14:05PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > (d)nase-a60 includes Revised Report on Algol 60, which has
> > no right to modify.
>
> And thus belongs in non-free for identical reasons to what I said above.
In that case, if you file a bug, I'd rather drop the doc than move the
package to non-free. It would be a shame. Considering the non-consensus
we have here, I'd probably just close the bug as a non-bug, though.
If we get a real consensus here, I'll follow it.
I've already made the upload which - if approved by ftpmasters - will
move haskell-doc to main, based on input I got on IRC. (Actually,
it seems upstream will change the license for the specs but I don't
know if this comes soon enough for potato.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
""
(John Cage)
Reply to: