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

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

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.


Attachment: pgp7yTvTGgab7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: