Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
> > > requirements of the DFSG.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > All the software in main.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:37:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we
> require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is
> simply false.
That because we're violating the social contract.
I don't think there's any question that "main" is the "Debian GNU/Linux
Distribution" which we promise to keep "entirely free software".
Nor is there any question that the debian free software guidelines
represents the social contract's definition of "free".
> There might be some debate about whether we should immediately drop all
> non-DFSG-free data and documentation. I certainly think it would be
> a ridiculously foolish thing to do, both from a technical standpoint
> of the best way to support our users, and from the standpoint of
> making it difficult for people to negotiate with the FSF to improve
> the GFDL. TTBOMK, both the delegates in charge of vetting licenses,
> ie ftpmaster, and the DPL agree with this view. I'm not aware of anyone
> making serious alternative suggestions.
>
> So no, I don't really think this is a matter of much debate.
It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG --
requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't
seem to have any justification on Debian's part.
--
Raul
Reply to: