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

Statement that all of Debian needs to be Free?


I'm surprised that someone thinks that there's any controversy on this
point.  As I understand it, the current situation is that, with the
release of sarge, everything in Debian should be DFSG free, including
programs, documentation, and miscellaneous files (as in this case), as
well as everything else, with the sole exception of license files.  Is
my summary correct?  The maintainer apparently wants a concensus from
debian-legal on this (in a separate message to the bug).

(Summary of the bug: several of the files in the 'etc' directory of
the emacs21 source have a license that explicitly forbids
modification.  These files are entirely non-functional.)

	Dylan Thurston

----- Forwarded message from browaeys.alban@wanadoo.fr -----

Subject: Bug#207932: Bug #207932 - emacs21: Includes non-free documents
Reply-To: browaeys.alban@wanadoo.fr, 207932-quiet@bugs.debian.org
From: browaeys.alban@wanadoo.fr
To: 207932-submitter@bugs.debian.org
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Followup for :

Thanks you for helping debian tracks licencing issues. Though this
bug looks like an extension of the GFDL issue to some non
documentation texts. This have not been agreed upon by
debian-legal (in fact as far as i know "licences" and such
documents have been explicitely exclude from the need to be DSFG
free ).

Again thank you for taking part in this time consuming task.
Please ask on debian-legal when you encounter new types of
documents not being explicitely stated in previous consensus
(even if closely related).

By the way it is not a bad thing to track those "not agreed upon" documents 
licence issues. Though please keep the talks about them on
debian-legal. Maintainers do another jobs which is fixing bugs
and making debian easier to use. Most of them don't want to hours
looking after advanced legal issues. That s why debian-legal
exists :)

By the way even if a consensus is reached on debian-legal it
would be helpfull to make a separate listing of those documents
and discuss it with the release team and debian-devel. But please
not the other way around. I would call it  hijacking debian-legal.

I guess this bug can be closed as "out of topic" for the bts.


----- End forwarded message -----

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: