On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:42:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free > > documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it > > would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing > > that the licenses of this documentation had been examined, their DFSG > > incompatibilities recognized, and the packages kept in main in spite of > > this. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/debian-devel-199811/msg02368.html > ] Certain kinds of documentation or other non-software works may have > ] further restrictions. > ... > ] (b) A document which states an opinion, as an opinion, need not be > ] modifiable. > Ian's proposal was rejected as being too formal, but was widely seen and > discussed. At the time though, this particular point was accepted without > argument, afaics and afaicr. Thanks for finding this; since this (and much else) was before my time, it's rather hard to get a big-picture look at the historical question -- this helps a lot. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature