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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 07:17, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:
> > Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> To the readers of this message: if you are a Debian developer and you
> >> do, or perhaps might, support including manuals covered by the GFDL
> >> (without expecting it to change) in Debian, please write to me and
> >> tell me.  (I am not subscribed to debian-legal and could not handle
> >> the volume of mail.)  But before you send it, please see if I have
> >> sent a further message to debian-legal saying "enough!"
> >
> > Your question has already been posed, and the answer is found here
> >
> >   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html
> No, the question was (carefully?) biased, ruling out several options.

Several options that are irrelevant to the question of whether or not
the GFDL is DFSG-free. We've been over this many times.

debian-legal clearly believes that the GFDL does not meet the DFSG.
Passing the DFSG is the *only* way anything can get into Debian. If you
want something else to get into Debian, you need to propose definitions
or guidelines on -project as a GR.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: