Re: Statement that all of Debian needs to be Free?
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> 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).
You're correct.
FYI, determining which materials are covered by the DFSG isn't a matter
decided by debian-legal (though I don't object to discussing it here),
but by the Social Contract.
> 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 :
> http://bugs.debian.org/207932
>
> 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 ).
As Dylan mentioned above, the only files which are excluded from the
requirement to be Free are (by necessity) license texts. Of the
documents listed in the original bug:
> etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
only "copying.paper" sounds like a license; the rest are simply documents,
which must be DFSG-free to be in Debian. This is not a matter of
controversy, or even significant disagreement; SC2004-003 made this
explicitly clear. Please remove these non-free documents; the grace
period allowed by SC2004-004 expired with the release of sarge.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: