On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 15:09, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:12:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Anyway, to answer your original question, "GFDL = non-free" is not an > > official Debian position simply because we haven't written up a proper > > explanation of why, and haven't gone through the GFDL documents in main > > to see which ones need removing. > <Insert proposed course of action re. GFDL here> > I am seeking seconds for this proposal. Second. I'm not going to have access to my email for the next 2 days, but when I get back I'd be willing to help with all of these. After reading all the GFDL debates I think I've got a pretty good handle on the issues involved. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part