Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> My next post to -devel-announce will discuss some of these finer details.
> In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some
> more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all
> gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies.
> Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp.
Well, that's news!
Given this I won't bother replying to Adam's questions.
> Given there's more ambiguity in whether to apply the DFSG to documentation
> than there is in whether the GFDL passes the DFSG, it seemed most
> sensible just to exempt documentation from the DFSG for sarge; so that's
> the policy.
Moot point if they come up with a GFDL that is DFSG-compliant.
Peter
Reply to: