On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 06:06:42PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > However, one thing gives me pause: if this goes to a vote, and the > vote is "no", then what? The vote can't be "no"; at the moment it can either be "The GFDL isn't suitable for main for these reasons (unmodifiable, transparent, drm)" or "Further discussion" -- neither of which are "no". > Is there another way we can proceed? We have not in the past felt it > necessary to issue official statements like this about non-DFSG > licenses; why the exception in this particular case? We have: http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19981008 Why do it especially for this? Becuase licenses from the FSF have a great deal of respect in the community, so the community deserves an explanation if we're going to treat one of them as non-free. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature