[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.
> 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.

Given that you were misinformed about the FSF's intentions [1] and
there is a clear consensus that works under the GFDL do not belong in
main [2], is this decision going to be revised?

Walter Landry

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html

Reply to: