Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:38:36PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> > I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that
> > has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on
> > the glibc mailing list:
> > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2003/debian-glibc-200308/msg00160.html>
>
> 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.
Haven't they had enough time to make a decision? This debate has been
going on for _years_. The DFSG is not something that is optional if
it is annoying. The documentation can be put back in when it is DFSG
free. If the FSF can't make up its mind before Sarge releases, then
they have only themselves to blame.
Not to mention that the end result could easily be another sorta-free
license. It really is time to set a deadline. The FSF has had enough
time.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: