On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:33:12PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:47:17PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> > > wrote: > > > > >"DFSG-free Debian bits" > > > > Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly > > clumsy phrase. By "DFSG-free" there, I meant "free of DFSG" not the > > other, more common sense "free according to DFSG". Please edit my > > original post accordingly to say things about "Debian bits ignoring > > DFSG" or similar. It's not GNU FDL'd. ;-) > > The following is not a rhetorical question: > > Are you saying that you would be amendable to the idea of a DFSG that is > slightly modified to make it more applicable to documentation as well? > (Considering the differences between software and documentation I pointed > out in a previous post) I would have no qualms about "Debian Free > Guidelines" or even a DFSG that was not tied to a source code view of the > world (and spelled out that it was not just for software). I would have serious objections to any even hypothetical "DFDG" that was different in any fashion *other* than this. I am completely ambivalent to this particular modification, because I consider it a no-op. I think you'll find most other people feel the same way. As such it probably won't make quorum even if it gets to the GR stage (I certainly wouldn't bother voting on something that pointless). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgp3LyfqJZYX0.pgp
Description: PGP signature