[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3



On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:02:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I ask you to contribute to Debian's progress, and not to impede it.
> There simply HAS BEEN NO PROBLEM before.  The GFDL is new, but the
> principles involved are NOT; they are WELL-TRAVELED GROUND, and it is

Sorry, I don't think this is the case. While the FSF may have established
that they're willing to ignore certain crucial freedoms for data and
documentation, Debian hasn't done anything similar.

That stuff licensed under the GFDL has made it into main doesn't
contradict this; I can give you examples of stuff that's been unlicensed
or has been non-free that's also made it into main, if you really like.
KDE is the most straightforward example.

It's something Debian's needed to actually think about for quite some
time.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
   C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
    can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
		-- Mike Hoye,
		      see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt

Attachment: pgpkPEitARRAf.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: