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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org>:

> Does everybody on that list, that thinks that GNU
> political/historical/philosophical/ texts must be DSFG compliant to be
> distributed by Debian, also thinks that the Debian logos must be DFSG 
> compliant?

No. I think it's much easier for Debian to make an exception for
Debian's logo than for documentation produced by other organisations,
be they the FSF or O'Reilly.

> So the next step seems obvious to me, Debian have make a choice:
>         - follow the strict definition of DFSG promoted by many
>         persons on that list and move the Official Debian Logo to
>         non-free.
>         - think about an another policy for logos or
>         political/philosophical/historical texts.

One could do that, but it wouldn't help because the FSF documentation
under discussion is neither a logo nor in the category of
"political/philosophical/historical texts".

Are we going round in circles here?

Reply to: