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

Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3

Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:

> I think you, dear sir, should consider whether this whole
> conversation--one you are the driving force behind--has done anything
> to contribute to Debian's progress.
> 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
> *you* who are the prime force behind trying to shake things up as much
> as possible.

For what it's worth (comming from someone who's not part of debian),
I'm very glad he's addressing the issue.  I fall into the category of
"My goodness, I didn't realize there were opinion pieces that couldn't
be modified and/or removed from the docs they accompany in main."  And
I don't think I'm unique here; I suspect a number of people would be
surprised, and possibly annoyed to bump into the issue after (for
example) trying to use a few pages of docs from the emacs manual.

I'm glad the issue is being discussed, and I hope that at the end of
it all there's some sort of statement that can be made (in DWN or
something) so that people know what to expect in the future.  Even if
the statement simply clarifies that there are non-modifiable texts
in main, and that they're ok.  I'd be disapointed if that were the
decision, but at least people would know what to expect.

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Reply to: