Re: the presence of GNU FDL-licensed works in sarge
* Branden Robinson <email@example.com> [2003-10-21 15:00]:
> In sum, I think the two-year gestation process on debian-legal was
> necessary to give this joint committee of Debian and the FSF a
> tractable task to deal with.
Yes, I fully agree with this, and appreciate the hard work -legal has
done to clearly identify the problems. My original mail tried to
answer your question about the "presence of GNU FDL-licensed works in
sarge" and not give a historical rundown.
> > either. I'd just like to remind you that we had a fair number of
> > GPLed packages linked against SSL and we even released with those
> > packages.
> I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of this line of argument; I
> know of no one who has advocated retroactively changing
> already-released versions of Debian to come into conformance with
My point was that we knew about the SSL linking problem before the
release. (I have not checked the archived, but I'm fairly sure this
was the case.) [And before I'm cited out of context, my original
sentence was followed by "However, I don't want to use this example to
justify further violations".]