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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:50:57AM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:59:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > People should think long and hard about this requirement, independent
> > of whether it is DFSG-compliant.  Think about the implications for the
> > ftp.debian.org mirror network, and for CD and DVD vendors.  It's a
> > pretty significant added burden for everybody - is it worth it?  This
> > is about more than DFSG compliance.  A lot of things can be
> > DFSG-compliant yet could still cause serious practical problems if
> > Debian were to ship them.
> The implications are definitely worth considering; just not here. This
> vote will be about whether the documentation is DFSG free or not, not
> about whether we choose to not distribute GFDL documents because of
> other reasons.

That's not the case -- the original proposal specifically talks about
the GFDL being unsuitable for main because it violates the DFSG; that it
may be unsuitable for other reasons is completely on-topic. The latter
two justifications don't go directly to the DFSG, even.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: