tags 302599 sarge-ignore thanks Hi Frank, On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 10:45:06AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > There's one more small point, the license of the documentation. The info > > files currently don't permit modification, > Since there were similar problems all over the source and we talked > about exactly that issue, this should be covered and fixed by the > author's statement earlier in the bug: > ,---- > | My intention has always been GPL pure and simple, same as linux. > `---- > (I am confident this will be more clear in a new upstream version, but it > doesn't seem as if this new version would be in time for sarge.) > > and the user's guide and > > install manual are under GFDL. You might have heard that Debian has a > > problem with the GFDL, while the FSF recommends it (and delegations of > > both groups are currently trying to sort this out). I don't want to > > bother you with these discussions. But to put it simple: > This is still unsettled, I think - the author never said anything about > the GFDL'ed parts, and I wasn't particularly clear in stating that we > think the GFDL is non-free. Therefore I think this must be looked at > again after sarge, but it's one of the usual sarge-ignore RC bugs. Yes, of course this bug can be ignored for sarge like other cases of non-free-but-distributable documentation. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature