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

Re: "Non-Free GFDL" and correct packaging practices

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:32:54AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> A fictional source package 'gnuhell' is the package of GNU Hell from
> ftp.gnu.org.  Like every other FSF-originated software, it follows their
> rules which means a fairly standard build structure and GFDL info
> documentation.
> The package as it currently stands has needed no modification and it
> constists of the pristine upstream source tar file renamed to
> gnuhell-1.5_orig.tar.gz, with the debian/ directory added by the
> .diff.gz and nothing else changed.
> The package has already undergone Xuification which means two binary
> packages are created; 'gnuhell' which contains the binary and support
> files (all GPL) and 'gnuhell-doc' which contains the info documentation
> (GFDL).
> Assuming the maintainer believes the GFDL is sufficiently non-free to
> warrant taking pre-emptive action and removing it, what's the right
> thing to do?

Hey, I've been in exactly this scenario.

I just punted the documentation (from the upstream source tarball as
well). I don't care enough to maintain it in non-free.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: