Re: GR proposal - Restricted-media amendments to the DFSG
On 6 Apr 2006, Sam Hocevar stated:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> What's that for, now? Obviously the majority (and also the
>> secretary) wasn't the opinion the DFSG needs to be changed. Could
>> you please just accept the decision being done, and can we go back
>> to work?
> Well since obviously the majority was of the opinion that the above
> two additions were compliant with the DFSG, it strikes me as obvious
> that the DFSG need clarification for those who did not exactly
> understand them that way. Just for consistency, you know.
Rubbish. The opinion I have seen bandied around is that the
two issues are a problem with the GFDL, and have been acknowledged as
such by the FSF, and are going to be fixed real soon now
™. Pragmatically, it does not make sense to remove documentation that
only has these issues, only to turn around and move them back in.
The GR sounds more like a sore loser GR.
I have seen the future and it is just like the present, only
longer. Kehlog Albran, "The Profit"
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C