On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and > logos in debian main, please file an RC bug against the package > in question. > > You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are > included as invariant sections, could be removed from our manuals, > you would make a point of removing them. No, I'm saying if you are aware of statements which cannot be removed in packages, plesae file an RC bug against the package containing them so the problem can be addressed. We're all human here, I think, and we occasionally miss parts of packages that are licensed in a manner that is not free under the DFSG. In other words, the fact that such unmodifyable, non-DFSG free statements exist in Debian doesn't mean that we have intentionally left them in Debian. If you make us aware of them, we will attempt to resolve the problem. > A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do > this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a > nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just > theoretical. No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to do with the content of the statements themselves, merely the fact that they are not free under the DFSG. If it's still not clear, please respond so I can clarify further. Don Armstrong 1: I think most package maintainers (or at least, I) try to keep their packages as close to pristine upstream as possible while making sure they can be distributed by Debian and play correctly with other packages. Removing documentation isn't something that is typically done. -- When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. -- Emo Philips. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgp7yTvTGgab7.pgp
Description: PGP signature