Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> a tapoté :
> We have the DFSG for exactly this reasons: We (meaning the Debian
> Project) can't decide what software is allowed in main by personal
> preference, independent whether it's mine, the of the DPL or the RM
Basically, if your involved in Debian, your personal preference should
be near from the Debian position.
So there's no complete independance between DFSG and Debian developers
feelings.
That said, I never asked to decide what software would be allowed on a
case by case basis, depending of the connections of the authors with
debian persons.
I asked to think about a possible distinction for Debian between
non-free software and GFDLed documentation.
> And the DFSG draw a sharp line: Either a package matches the DFSG,
> then it could be part of Debian,
> and be uploaded to main. Or a package doesn't match. Then it can't
> be part of main. There is nothing else to discuss at d-l
And nothing will ever change? The distinction I'm talking about is not
in the DFSG, that's correct.
Now, do we refuse it because DFSG is a block of marble or because we
think that there no valid reason to change?
The second option seems more sensible to me, that's why I'm try to
check if there can be valid reason to change or not. But apparently
you prefer the first option, claiming that "there is nothing else to
discuss at d-l".
If everybody apart me feels like you, we can drop the "A possible GFDL
compromise" subject, because there won't be any compromise.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: