On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 17:18, Dylan Thurston wrote: > On 2003-09-16, Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org> wrote: Your problem is here. Quote more carefully next time. > >> 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-annou= > > nce-200308/msg00017.html > >>=20 > >> 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. > > ...which is not what RMS... ... which is not who I was responding to... > asked above. You managed to cut the fact that I was addressing Florian Weimer, and not RMS. > > 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. > > Right. So RMS is asking for anyone who supports such a GR to e-mail him. Right. But Florian Weimer was claiming that the ballot was biased, when in fact it was merely establishing a necessary, much-requested, official opinion on the status of the FDL wrt to the DFSG. Please, read your email more carefully. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part