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

Re: Bug#281672: marked as done (autoconf: non-free documentation)

Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> They've concluded that the GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG,
> Yes.
>> and that everything in Debian (apparently modulo licenses
>> themselves) must satisfy the DFSG. 
> No. The latest amendment to the social contract (GR 2004-004)
> indicates that we should at least allow the interpretation of the
> previous social contract by the RM and can refrain from removing items
> that don't satisfy the DFSG and may not have to according to their (or
> ftpmaster's) judgement.[1]
> 1: Obviously, post-sarge is an entirely different story.

If it's needed post-sarge, then it's even better if we get it
done pre-sarge, obviously.  If Autoconf's documentation is not
wanted in Debian, then it's not wanted in sarge.

The rationale in GR 2004-004 is that we don't have enough time to
remove FDL documentation.  I had a free hour, so I removed it
from Autoconf.

>> Autoconf's documentation is under the FDL and therefore must be
>> removed.  Furthermore, there was both an official and an unofficial
>> vote in favor of making sure that this happens.  I was opposed, but
>> I can't really go against the will of the whole project.
> From what I can tell, the overall consensus was that sarge should
> release with GFDLed and similar works in place, and that we should
> remove these works post-sarge.

The rationale in GR 2004-004 is that we don't have enough time to
remove FDL documentation.  Simply not true in my case.  It's a
simple job and I did it.

> Either way, you're free to remove the documentation or keep it as you
> see fit, but please don't lay the blame upon everyone who participates
> in debian-legal for doing so.

Okay.  I'll blame, instead, everyone who voted in favor of GR
Ben Pfaff 
email: blp@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org

Reply to: