[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC

On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The policy decision's at http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt:
> > ] Code in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs and
> > ] in the source (including the .orig.tar.gz)
> > ]
> > ] Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable,
> > ] and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This
> > ] will likely become a requirement post-sarge.
> Huh ? Does this mean that we can move the ocaml-docs package to main
> again ? 

If it's GFDLed, or under a similar license, you can -- it's maintainer's
discretion. You should keep working with upstream to get a DFSG-free
license on the docs; and if you don't succeed at that, you'll probably
need to move them back to non-free again in not too long a while. If
you do move it back to main, you should file a "serious" bug about this,
and tag it sarge-ignore for tracking purposes.



and look for "One of the things".


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law
http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: