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. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature