Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:26:49PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Even if we end up with a different definition (which is unlikely as the
>> DFSG are simple and can be applied to documentation as well)
> I beg to differ.
In which case, you need to demonstrate the problems in doing so. It is
normal to tell the developers how to reproduce the bug when you report it.
Otherwise, we'll just tag this as "works for me" or "invalid" and move on.
Suggesting a bugfix GR before showing the bug you are trying to fix is
reckless, IMO. If exclusion of FDL-covered works is the bug, your GR
should just be a proposal to allow FDL-covered works, but it's not.
[...]
> I'm not saying we have to do that. I'm only saying we have to decide
> whether or not the rules for declaring documentation to be free should
> be the same as the rules for declaring computer programs to be free [...]
Please note that they are not called the "Debian Free Computer Program
Guidelines".
Reply to: